On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. >
Probably. I remember I stopped reading after your proof of the existence of a new type of indeterminacy never seen before because the proof was in error, so there was no point in reading about things built on top of that; but I don't remember if that was step 3 or not. >You assume a physical reality, > I assume that if physical reality doesn't exist then either the words "physical" or "reality" or "exists" are meaningless, and I don't think any of those words are. > > and you assume that our consciousness is some phenomenon related > exclusively to some construct (brain, bodies) > If you change your conscious state then your brain changes, and if I make a change in your brain then your conscious state changes too, so I'd say that it's a good assumption that consciousness is interlinked with a physical object, in fact it's a downright superb assumption. > >> so if it [Evolution] produced it [consciousness] >> > > >No. With comp, consciousness was there before. > Well I don't know about you but I don't think my consciousness was there before Evolution figured out how to make brains, I believe this because I can't seem to remember events that were going on during the Precambrian. I've always been a little hazy about what exactly "comp" meant but I had the general feeling that I sorta agreed with it, but apparently not. 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 [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.
