RE: The Game of Life

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:23:01 -0000

Again, anthropic reasoning should start with the idea that this thought is a
representative thought among thoughts - not assume that you are a
representative physical human. But I think this thread is getting lost out
there ...
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marchal [SMTP:marchal.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 11:02 AM
> To: Russell Standish
> Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: The Game of Life
>
> >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.
>
>
> There are no good reasons, I think, to take human-like reference
> class in 'scientific' (let us say) matter. And I do not.
>
> I appreciate the Anthropic Principle though. I am convinced of the
> benefit of weak Anthropic-like reasoning.
>
> Actually you touch my principal motivation for substituting the
> human observer by the machine observer.
>
> A lot of reasoning can be done with the more vague 'Self-Aware
> Substructure', (which does not need to be a machine) but as you know I
> give a special role to the SRC UTM. (SRC = Self Referentially
> Correct).
>
> Why animals does not wonder why the universe has the form it does?
> I think that animals are SRC in some sense (after all living animals
> did succeed the "evolution test"). But animals lack some degree
> of introspectiveness. Animals knows but does not know they know.
>
> When you simulate throwing a piece of wood in front of a dog, the
> dog can show some sense of astonishment though.
>
> But religions and fundamental sciences begin with astonishment
> in front of the banal, when you stop taking for granted the very
> nature of the apparantly obvious. This need higher introspective
> power, and higher communication means, for exemple to remember
> and talk about dreams.
>
> Look at Smullyan's description(°) of advancing stages of
> self-awareness page 89 (either in the hard or paperback edition).
>
> Human-like interrogations begin perhaps with the Smullyan's stage 4
> where the 'reasoner' is able to know that it knows.
> More on that modal stuff later ...
>
> Regards,
> Bruno
>
> (°) Raymond Smullyan : FOREVER UNDECIDED
> Hardback: 1987, Alfred A. KNOPF, New York.
> Paperback: 1988, Oxford University Press.
Received on Fri Jan 07 2000 - 03:25:08 PST