Hi Bruno Marchal Obviously, my statement wasn't very clear.
All living things can sense their environments. Plants turn themselves sometimes to the light and know night from day. I don't know if they have the sensation of light, which is a clear indication of what is produced in the mind by consciousness. To the degree that a plant can do that would be how conscious it is. I would say that a plant's consciousness would be more like the "consciousness" we have when we dream. But that's just a speculation. Roger Clough, [email protected] 10/20/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-18, 10:39:33 Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life On 17 Oct 2012, at 19:19, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > IMHO all life must have some degree of consciousness > or it cannot perceive its environment. Are you sure? Would you say that the plants are conscious? I do think so, but I am not sure they have self-consciousness. Self-consciousness accelerates the information treatment, and might come from the need of this for the self-movie living creature having some important mass. "all life" is a very fuzzy notion. Bruno > > > Roger Clough, [email protected] > 10/17/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-10-17, 10:13:37 > Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life > > > > > On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:37, John Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > >>> If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see it, >>> so how and why did Evolution produce it? The fact that you have no >>> answer to this means your ideas are fatally flawed. > >> I don't see this as a *fatal* flaw. Evolution, as you've noted, is >> not a paradigm of efficient design. Consciousness might just be a >> side-effect > > But that's exactly what I've been saying for months, unless Darwin > was dead wrong consciousness must be a side effect of intelligence, > so a intelligent computer must be a conscious computer. And I don't > think Darwin was dead wrong. > > > > > > Darwin does not need to be wrong. Consciousness role can be deeper, > in the "evolution/selection" of the laws of physics from the > coherent dreams (computations from the 1p view) in arithmetic. > > > Bruno > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > . > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
