Of course (as you know) I say one could bring a "bunch of atoms together" to get something that is a conscious self.
*First 3D Engineered Vascularized Human Heart Is Bioprinted* https://www.genengnews.com/news/first-3d-engineered-vascularized-human-heart-is-bioprinted/ In the future: a Brain? The problem is not appreciating *experience* !== information*. * Experience (Experientiality) as an ultimate property of matter. - pt On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 2:52:03 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > Exactly. This is the whole point. In order to have self-reference, you > need to have a self. And you don't just get a self by arranging atoms in > certain positions. You don't get a self by bringing a bunch of atoms > together and calling them "a robot", because calling them "a robot" is just > something that you yourself do in your own consciousness. Only because you > call that bunch of atoms "a robot" it doesn't mean that all of a sudden > magic happens and that bunch of atoms really become "a robot", or a self. > So you don't just get selves. Self is a rather specific entity. Self is > exactly that entity that is included by default in the very notion of > "self-reference". Self is that ontological entity that has as its very > property the property of referring-back-to-itself. And automatically that > kind of entity is unformalizable. > > On Friday, 19 April 2019 10:44:39 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> The problematic part of "self-reference" is "self". >> >> -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
