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. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/NRKbvcFBg7QJ. 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.
