On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:59:11PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:32:21PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> >>Do we have any reason to believe ideas reproduce with variation and
> >>then those that reproduce most successfully rise to consciousness?
> >>THAT would be a Darwinian theory of consciousness.
> >>
> >>Brent
> >Dennett's pandemonium theory would seem to be like that.
> I don't think Dennett contemplated sexual reproduction of ideas.

That's irrelevant. Plenty of biological life reproduce asexually.

> >Of course,
> >there must be differences in the details between conscious thought and
> >biological evolution - for example, thought may well be Lamarckian in
> >character (like cultural evolution).
> The 'natural selection' that acts on ideas is mainly consilience
> with other ideas that are already occupying brain resources.

I'm not convinced one way or other by this. I suspect we still don't
know enough to say. Nevertheless, in the pandemonium model, there is a
selection process of some sort going on.


Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to