On 04 May 2013, at 19:45, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

Materialism can never explain consciousness or perception properly, because:

Neither materialism nor non-materialism can explain consciousness if
it's fundamental because being fundamental means explanations come to
a end.

But is consciousness fundamental?

With the comp hypothesis consciousness is not so difficult to explain, as it is appears to come from an instinctive act of faith in at least one reality, and that reality emerges from the way a machine or a relative number can refer to itself and discover a true semantical fixed point in his computational histories.

Then consciousness get an important role, as this semantical fixed point gives to the machine a way to infinitely (in principle) accelerate itself relatively to its most probable neighborhood(*). I suspect that all self-moving creature develop some form of consciousness, even the plants (but not necessarily on the same scale).

Consciousness is almost like an unconscious religion or act of faith.
In the early morning, it can take the shape of a vague belief in some coffee-cup reality, and that seems handy to generalize and bet that there might be some other possibilities beyond the bed :)


(*) I will prove this on Russell's FOAR list, where I develop some more technical detail.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to