You raise 2 points: Answers
1. Beats me. I have never found anthropic reasoning useful.
2. Yes, we agree, consciousness requires time; nether exist
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: None
> To: james.higgo.domain.name.hidden
> Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: Wake up guys, you're assuming the world
>
> >
> > Would you all stop being so anthropocentric? The idea you have of being
> a
> > human is just that: an idea. Don't leap to the conclusion that there is
> a
> > human, or a person, or a self. All you know is this idea. Anthropic
> > reasoning is severely constrained because its practitioners invariably
> make
> > a host of assumptions, including realism, and that what they see is
> real,
> > and that the visible 'reality' is one of them as independent physical
> beings
> > in a classical universe.
> >
> > Please go back a step, and understand that all thoughts exist in the
> > plenitude; whether they are 'dog' thoughts or 'human thoughts' is
> > interesting, but it does not set them in different classes in any way.
> >
>
> But it does. If all concious entities are included in the reference
> class, then why, for Pete's sake are we even discussing the Anthropic
> Principle (or for that matter - anything at all). It may well be there
> is something missing in our admittedly half baked theories of
> conciousness that sets us apart from other animals - I just can't
> think what.
>
> > Consciousness does not exists; time does not exist, as an objective
> feature
> > of reality. But all thoughts do exist.
>
> Conciousness and Time are like the opposite sides of a coin - neither
> exists without the other. Each is a 1st person phenomenon. I suspect
> this is what you believe when you make comments like non existence of
> time or conciousness. If not, then we may as well be living on
> different planets.
>
> >
> > Don't worry, I shan't bother saying this again.
> >
> > James
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Fred Chen [SMTP:flipsu5.domain.name.hidden]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 8:17 AM
> > > To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > > Subject: Re: The Game of Life
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marchal wrote (in response to Russell Standish):
> > >
> > > > >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.
> > >
> > > Animals can display signs of self-awareness and consciousness. They do
> not
> > > possess all the mental faculties that humans have that we may take for
> > > granted. For example, as mentioned by Bruno, introspection and
> > > inquisitiveness. But the hard evidence for being human lies in written
> and
> > > symbolic language and the ability to generate permanent records using
> this
> > > language. Most animals are physically incapable of writing, e.g.,
> > > quadrupeds. A substitute for written language could be a very good
> memory
> > > capacity for communication by sound (oral language). The limitation of
> > > oral
> > > language is that it is inherently one-dimensional, while written or
> > > symbolic language is two-dimensional. Both written language and
> sufficient
> > > memory capacity for oral language probably require highly evolved
> brains.
> > > Written language also leads to the concept of laws.
> > >
> > > An appreciation of the Anthropic Principle by an SAS requires the SAS
> > > possesses, in addition to introspection and inquisitiveness, a sense
> of
> > > laws governing the world. This would entail that the SAS should have
> > > something equivalent to written language ability. With these
> abilities, it
> > > would be natural for the SAS to ask why the laws are the way they are,
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Fred
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 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 Mon Jan 10 2000 - 02:09:35 PST