On 12/12/2011 7:55 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Dec 11, 6:05 pm, Russell Standish<li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
The question is - where is the consciousness in all this? I think it
must move with the levels - and given the UDA and COMP, I would say
that consciousness appears at the Multiverse level, not the single
I don't see why invoking a Multiverse is preferable to a continuum of
public and private sense channels within one universe. If
consciousness appears at the Multiverse level, should we not be
conscious of the Multiverse? Instead, it is just the opposite. The one
characteristic which is shared most pervasively among sane subjects is
realism - a practical certainty of a single shared sense context which
is uncompromisingly and absolutely real.
This is a good point but let me flesh it out a bit. It seems to me
that in a way the Multiverse is isomorphic to a "continuum of public and
private sense channels within one universe ", the difference is just one
of point of view. The Multiverse view is an abstraction taken as if one
where somehow "outside" of the multiverse a literal impossibility for
such would require that there exist a reality allowing observers outside
of the multiverse and the latter is an abstraction taking into account a
plurality of disjoint 1p.
That a collection of communicating entities will have a collective
sense of a single context that is "real" follows immediately from the
necessity of mutual non-contradiction over those communications. If
there is no coherent content of one or more entities that would
contradict the "realness" of our world, why should we not have the
experience of a single world? We usually put this requirement onto the
notion of universal laws, but that assessment requires the unnecessary
explanatory burden of some prior measure on the possible worlds, a
burden that need not exist in the first place!
BTW - I had a similar problem with your MGA - it is not intrinsically
absurd to me that a recording can be conscious. From the right point
of view (presumably that of the consciousness itself - aka the "inside
view"), it seems plausible that a recording could be conscious.
If recordings were conscious, wouldn't they evolve behind our backs?
Shouldn't Bugs Bunny continue to have new adventures inside the film
can that we can watch forever? It makes more sense to me that
recordings are not conscious, but rather they are artifacts arranged
so that consciousness may play them as an indirect or specular
sensorimotive experience. We have no reason to assume that
consciousness, or anything else, can be a disembodied arithmetic.
If recordings where conscious then why bother with the "real
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at