On 16 February 2014 17:42, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: I don't disagree, but I think this formulation leaves "meaning" as > mysterious and one may ask why consciousness creates meaning. I think > meaning comes from being able to act in the world to realize values. And > it doesn't require consciousness, at least not human like consciousness. > The Mars Rover acts to fulfill a mission plan and so rocks and hills have > meaning for it.
Unfortunately this seems to me to beg the questions it seeks to answer. The Mars Rover certainly acts in a manner consistent with rocks and hills having meaning for it (based on our empathic identification with its situation) but its behaviour can equally be attributed to physics alone (as indeed can ours, under the same physicalist assumptions). But I agree that meaning is related to value and hence cries out for an explanation of value that resists elimination by reduction to an account in purely physical terms. This requirement probably implies some necessary relation between meaning and consciousness, or at least self-reference. It may be that the ramifications of computational reference may ultimately lead to such an explanation, but that is beyond my competence to assess. Right now I don't have any other suggestions. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
