On 7/14/2012 8:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/14/2012 9:48 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
No, the reverse is the case. The "belongs to an infinity of
computations making you singling out some stable patterns" requires
the prior existence of the "you" to select it. The observer (you
here) effectively is the measure via a self-selection rule. I cannot
discount my own existence given the immediate fact that I am
experiencing myself as existing. Descartes' Cognito ergo Sum is a
pointed statement of this unassailable fact. We cannot put the
observer on a level that is emerging from the computations if the
observer is the one that is selecting the class of computations that
are generating said observer.
How does this comport with Everett's QM which has it that there is no
unique, persistent "you" to do the selecting. It seems a simple
matter of logic that any theory which sets out to explain
consciousness cannot assume an observer, on pain of circularity.
Interesting. So the unitary evolution of the SWF or state vector is
not continuous over its spectrum or what ever it is called ... the cover
or span of the basis? I completely fail to understand your claim here.
Could you elaborate on your ideas here. I am interested in your
expertise. I am just a very annoying but well meaning student.
You do understand that absent circularity it is impossible for
consciousness to exist. Go through Descartes' /_Meditations_/ and slow
down on the part about "can I doubt my own existence?" He was not the
first to notice that circularity is the hall mark of consciousness. Why
is circularity a bad thing. Please Remind me, I seem to have forgotten.
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
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