On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> But that's what the brain does, simulate experience from the point of
> view of the owner or liver of the experience. According to some
> theory. You can't talk like if you knew that this is false.
This is the retrospective view of consciousness that takes experience for
granted. How can experience itself be simulated? I can have an experience
within which another experience is simulated, but there is no ontological
basis for the assumption that experience itself - *all experience* can be
somehow not really happening but instead be a non-happening that defines
itself *as if* it is happening. Somewhere, on some level of description,
something has to actually be happening. If the brain simulates experience,
what is it doing with all of those neurotransmitters and cells? Why bother
with a simulation or experience at all? Comp has no business producing such
things at all. If the world is computation, why pretend it isn't - and how
exactly is such a pretending possible.
It's a fun theory, but it's really not a viable explanation for the
universe where we actually live.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at