On 20 Oct 2012, at 07:15, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> 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.

I have no idea what that means, not a clue,

Probably for the same reason that you stop at step 3 in the UD Argument.

You assume a physical reality, and you assume that our consciousness is some phenomenon related exclusively to some construct (brain, bodies) in that physical reality.

But once you grasp the first person indeterminacy, and take into account its many invariance features (they can't distinguish immediately "real", "virtual", "arithmetical", they can't be aware of the delays of reconstitution) you can see that comp make the existence of a physical universe a from of vague "wishful thinking" kind of thing, as your future, from your first person points of view will depend on all the computations going through your actual current relative state(s).

Comp generalized Everett (on QM) to arithmetic.

No doubt we share deep linear computations. Everett saves comp from solipism. But QM has to be retrieved from number dreams statistics to confirms this.

Advantage? The subtlety of arithmetical self-reference makes possible to distinguish many sorts of points of view, and suggests explanation for the difference between the qualia and the quanta.




but I do know that Evolution can't select for something it can't see,

OK.



and I do know that Evolution can see intelligence because it produces behavior.

OK.



Evolution can't see consciousness directly any better than we can,

Plausible.




so if it produced it

No. With comp, consciousness was there before. It just get lost on relatively coherent sheafs of computational histories. We share dreams. (a dream is a computation to which a first person is attributable)



(and it did unless Darwin was dead wrong)

Darwin explains the evolution of species, in an Aristotelian framework.

Comp refutes the Aristotelian framework, and saves the main part of Darwin, indeed, it generalizes it on a realm where the laws of physics themselves arises by a process of arithmetical self-selection.




then consciousness MUST be a byproduct of something that it can see.

The contrary, if you say "yes" to the doctor by betting on comp, "consciously".

I think anybody can see that once he/she/it takes comp seriously and stay cold rationalist on the subject.

I don't think it is so much more alluring than Everett QM.

Bruno





  John K Clark



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to