On 10/20/2012 5:16 PM, John Mikes wrote:
especially in my identification as "responding to relations".
Now the "Self"? IT certainly refers to a more sophisticated level of thinking, more so than the average (animalic?) mind. - OR: we have no idea. What WE call 'Self-Ccness' is definitely a human attribute because WE identify it that way. I never talked to a cauliflower to clarify whether she feels like having a self? (In cauliflowerese, of course).

If we where cauliflowers, we would have no concept of what it would be like to be "human" or, maybe, that humans even exist!

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

    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.


        Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
        "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




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