On 06 Oct 2012, at 04:55, Russell Standish wrote:

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.

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.

This is an open problem to me. Even bacteria exchange genetic materials, and even bacteria which don't practice sex, get their genetic material exchanged through virus. And I don't know if Dennett contemplated sexual reproduction of ideas, but I like to see dialog and exchange of ideas as a form of sexual reproduction, even if it is more sophisticated than crossing over, mutation, or typical low level exploitation of code.

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.

I agree. In arithmetic too. And consciousness is the main selector there. It makes physics evolving like biology, except that the context is a logico-arithmetical setting, instead of a space-time.



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