On Sat, Oct 20, 2012  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to