On 11/11/2012 12:24 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 08:43:29PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/10/2012 8:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I'm not sure how Bruno argues for it, but my version goes something
1) Self-awareness is a requirement for consciousness
2) We expect to find ourselves in an environment sufficiently rich and
complex to support self-aware structures (by Anthropic Principle), but
not more complex than necessary (Occams Razor). Sort of like
Einstein's principle "As simple as possible, and no simpler."
But this is the step I questioned. Why not be like the Borg, i.e.
one consciousness with many bodies? I think we only 'expect' to
Quite possibly because Borgs have lower measure for the anthropic
selection to work on than single body minds, particularly with mortal
bodies, as I would assume a Borg mind is effectively immortal.
Yes, the Borg mind would be, literally, independent of the
existence of any subset of its collective bodies.
I have always felt that one resolution of the Doomsday Argument is
that humanity mind melds (or uploads, Singularity-style) so that
effectively no new minds get born.
Is this a good thing?
I haven't quite figured out what happens if we invert the relationship
- many minds to a body. Why don't we all exhibit multiple personality
yeah! We see in the cases of MPD that each personality does not
know of the existence of the others until that fact is forced on them.
It probably has to do with the embodiment of the mind, but
still I don't know how this connects to the Anthropic Principle.
How do you define the AP? My definition is: An observer cannot
experience itself existing in a world whose rules contradict its
existence in that world. Its just a self-consistency rule.
find ourselves as we are because we don't have good theory about how
we might be otherwise. COMP proposes to explain how we are by the
UDA, but it needs to explain why we are associated with bodies - not
just assume it to avoid solipism.
Absolutely agree. In fact COMP exacerbates the situation, in that it
is a form of idealism, making the Anthropic Principle mysterious
rather than ordinary. Whilst this is definitely a strike in favour of
materialism, there are so many other disadvantages of materialism that
it is worth trying to nut out how COMP can support the Anthropic Principle.
I agree 100%
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
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