On 17 February 2014 02:34, David Nyman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16 February 2014 17:42, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't disagree, but I think this formulation leaves "meaning" as >> mysterious and one may ask why consciousness creates meaning. I think >> meaning comes from being able to act in the world to realize values. And it >> doesn't require consciousness, at least not human like consciousness. The >> Mars Rover acts to fulfill a mission plan and so rocks and hills have >> meaning for it. > > > Unfortunately this seems to me to beg the questions it seeks to answer. The > Mars Rover certainly acts in a manner consistent with rocks and hills having > meaning for it (based on our empathic identification with its situation) but > its behaviour can equally be attributed to physics alone (as indeed can > ours, under the same physicalist assumptions). But I agree that meaning is > related to value and hence cries out for an explanation of value that > resists elimination by reduction to an account in purely physical terms. > This requirement probably implies some necessary relation between meaning > and consciousness, or at least self-reference. It may be that the > ramifications of computational reference may ultimately lead to such an > explanation, but that is beyond my competence to assess. Right now I don't > have any other suggestions. > > David
I think Brent feels he has the answer to the question of what is needed to give rise to meaning/feeling/consciousness etc. His position is quite attractive and consistent, but I am not sure how to convince myself that it is true. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
