Marcus - > > I think the least plausible of these is the think-yourself-happy > approach. If it always worked, that would be Free Will. Mind over > matter. > This is quite familiar to my own operational logic. I tend toward trick-yourself-happy with things like "I can always procrastinate later" to break a procrastination rut for example. I'm experimenting (without any controls or even a plan) on my (struggling) 26 year old nephew by offering him a series of "trick-yourself-out-of-unhappy-or-inaction" tricks that I have gathered (by bouncing through a life). So far, his resistance (my Sister's family's classic I-cant-because) has held firm, but I trust some of the seeds of my cult-deprogramming are getting through even if they haven't sprouted yet. I follow what I take to be a stylization of Glen's (likely?) prescription which is to change my habits and my internal state will follow (with some exponential moving average?). A friend used to call this "acting as if". > > I don’t see machines all the way down and panconsciousness at odds. > Open source software. > I suppose the question begged by ORCH-AR (Penrose-Hameroff) and Poised Realm (Kauffman) or Neuronal Superposition (Pearce hisself) and others is whether "all the way down is qualitatively different for sufficiently large values of 'down' ? " at which point something magical/mystical/mythical happens and "viola!" Consciousness!
And you are probably much better able to explain why a "quantum machine" is qualitatively different (or not) than a classical machine? - Steve
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
