Desmund Biddulph helped me to a crucial insight: thoughts exist in the
plenitude, but they are not objectively related to one another. This very
thought, of you reading this e-mail, exists. But don't expect it to be
followed by another one!
So - consciousness is the hard problem precisely because it does not exist
as a sequence of thoughts in time. Nothing can be viewed objectively as a
sequence of thoughts in time.
A lion's idea of hunger exists, but there is no lion...
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 6:26 AM
> To: marchal.domain.name.hidden
> Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: The Game of Life
>
> > 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 Thu Jan 06 2000 - 03:00:54 PST