> I attribute consciousness to the animals, and that is why I agree with
> the importance of your distinction. (Animals does not seem to have the
> reflexive thought).
> But the animal will not insist on the distinction inside/outside.
> (Though it can be very self-centered; like a dog jealous of a baby.)
> Even the animal makes unconscious, automatic, inferences of his
> self-concistency but the animal is quite unaware of that inference
> and its relation with itself.
> Consciousness is always self-consciousness but can be center or border
> focusing. I think.
> >From the little mammifere to the primate there is a change of focus
> going from the border to the center.
>
> It is not solipsism because I have never say that the inference are
> necessarily wrong or illusory. I have no doubt there is some sort of
> "outside realm" whatever it is.
>
> Bruno.
>
This touches on a philosophical conundrum I have. Like Bruno, I too
attribute conciousness to some animals. eg a number of dogs I know
seem to be concious at an intuitive level. As the previous discussion
followed, conciousness appears to be reflexive in some manner, even if
indirectly.
My problem is with the Anthropic principle. If conciousness is all
that is needed to "instantiate" an interesting universe, then why do
we even understand what the anthropic principle is? Presumably dogs do
not wonder why the universe has the form it does. Why do we?
There has to be some good reason why the reference class must be
human-like, i.e. able to understand philosophical issues such as the
anthropic principle.
Cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit,
University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Jan 05 2000 - 22:27:44 PST