On 1 September 2014 16:36, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 12:24:37PM +1200, LizR wrote: > > > > As per what I was saying about Watson (or whatever it's called), the baby > > needs to be immersed in an environment in order to develop any form of > > consciousness beyond the rudimentary raw feels provided by nature - that > > is, it needs to be educated by interaction with the environment, and with > > other people (i.e. assimilate culture). > > > > This actually supplies a good reason for why we should find ourselves > in a regular, lawlike universe. We can get by with a smaller genome, > and learn the rest of the stuff that makes up our mental life, which > is a more likely scenario (even evolutionary speaking) than having a > large genome directly encoding our knowledge. > > Of course, that is only possible if in fact the environment is regular > enough to be learnable. > That seems to make sense. Do you mean that observers can only evolve in a universe with a lawlike environment, because it isn't "worth" evolving brains if the environment is unpredictable? (Assuming one even could, in that case...) -- 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/d/optout.
