> On 11 Feb 2019, at 01:42, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I do not hold to the idea of panpsychism
Nor do I. > and the existence of God is something that can be dismissed with no loss of > understanding of reality. Of course, you mean the first Aristotelian God. The second is Primary Matter, or some substance. With Mechanism, none of them is available. But we keep a universal dreamer, and its possible awakening. The price? It get also very deeply very easily, and can almost itself in very long complex histories. > It is harder to know about consciousness in living things. I hesitate in some > ways to think that prokaryotes are conscious in the way we are, just greatly > diminished. The prokaryotes up to most some jellyfish and plants might live the simple pure innocent consciousness of Robinson Arithmetic. With spider, cuttlefish and higher animals, the slope toward Löbianity seems to be there, but language and big neocortex accelerate this tremendously, and even that is nothing compared to the human made universal machine (seen in geological time …). > My dogs are conscious beings I am pretty convinced, but I think their mental > landscape is smaller than that of a human. I am not sure of that. Dogs are a bit idolaters toward the boss or the master, but they have much less prejudices than the human, and as such there are more open minded. Now, it is hard to motivate them for digging more on the reflexion, but some dogs are more wise than many humans. Our consciousness are hard to compare. Some dogs loves cannabis, also, and I am ready to bet they make a very similar experience than the humans. They have just not a brain to articulate their feeling and to exploit their potential “Löbianity”, and maybe they are lucky for that, I don’t know. > So somewhere in that spectrum consciousness may emerge. Plants may have some > form of consciousness, and they do signal and appear to have some level of > awareness of their surroundings. Yes, the trees seem to communicate in the forest. There is also a problem of time scaling. I suspect some plants to be conscious but with a different time scale. I think the opposite for little animals (a day for a butterfly might seems much longer from the first person perspective of an insect). > > Consciousness is in a way a sort of bootstrap process where a being generates > an internal representation of themselves and themselves in this world. Yes. It is basically what the second recursion theorem explains (and that happens “all the time” in the arithmetical reality. > It is then a sort of virtual process, and one where there being encodes a > representation of themselves within themselves. I think it has some form of > truncated self-reference such as Gödel's theorem. Yes. Consciousness is very near the notion of consistency. It entails the impossibility of being proved, and it generates the sense, as consistency is basically equivalent with “being satisfied (made true) in some reality”. But consciousness is not equivalent with consistency, except in God eyes. The subtleties of incompleteness provides the tools to avoid the “theological traps”, by keeping the difference between G and G* into account, and same for the other modes. > It might serve to give an estimate on say Chaitin's halting probability so > the being is able to take a risk. Chatin’s probability is too much rough for this, and is probably more related to the big-bang and to cosmology than to consciousness. Consciousness needs only Post Number (the halting Oracle, offered by the first person indeterminacy). Chaitin’s number is the ultra-compressed version of Post numbers 0,abcd… where each a, b … is 0 or 1 according to phi_i converges or not, in an enumeration of the zero-art programs of some Turing universal “language”. > This may be extended in part to all sort of complex self-adaptive systems, in > particular biological organisms. With Post number, no doubt. Oblgatory so for classical indexical computationalism. Bruno > > LC > > On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 5:34:01 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > Two recent books: > > The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness > Arthur S. Reber > https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ > <https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ> > > Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity > Paul Thagard > https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ > <https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ> > > via > When Did Consciousness Begin? > Paul Thagard > https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin > > <https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin> > > Thagard's 10 hypotheses: > > 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal. > > 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years > ago. > > 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years ago > (Reber). > > 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years > ago. > > 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of > neurons, around 580 million years ago. > > 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with > about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) around > 560 million years ago. > > 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed much > larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million years > ago. [Thagard] > > 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago. > > 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 years > ago (Julian Jaynes). > > 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake > (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). > > - pt > > > -- > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com > <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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 email@example.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.