Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
There is no recursion because the context is undefinable, "Who created the creator" is a question without meaning, you might as well ask "when purple the creator",
Huh? Sounds like a faith-based argument to me -> it's a slippery slope from that to talking snakes
So here's what I say: Consciousness cannot arise from an abstract function. Or any kind of function or mathematics or set of commands, or algorythm.
'consciousness' is an inherently **human** characteristic...the perception of it is entirely dependent upon humans
That's a pretty bold statement. My position is that the laws that govern the universe (whatever they may be), do lead to consciousness (since we're here and conscious). And I do believe that these laws (again whatever they may be) are ultimately themselves an abstract construct that form our reality (but the only difference between abstract and reality is that "physical reality" is equivalent to "perceived abstract")
I guess it ultimately depends on the definition of 'consciousness'. I see it more as the simple definition (ala Julian Jaynes), of 'capable of introspection', eg: we're not always conscious when awake. At some point this is really purely a philosophical matter: none of it makes a difference in how we live our lives, but I somehow find the abstract very satisfying as it solves the question of "why is there something rather than nothing" without resorting to the anthropomorphic principle.
Max Tegmark recently published a book on the Mathematical Universe, which is along the same lines, though I like to differentiate "abstract" from "mathematical" (as the latter seems like an unnecessary restriction)