[eu-gene] Generative or not? cubo23

[cubo23 at motorhueso.net]

>> Alex:
>> There's a train of thought which I enjoy very much, which is that
>> consciousness is a simulation.  In order to predict what might happen to
>> them so that they can prepare for oncoming danger, our bodies evolved so
>> that they could run a simulation of the world around them.  Some
>> evolutionary steps later sees the body running two simulations, one of
>> the world, and one of the body itself.  The two simulations interact.
>> The simulation of the body is consciousness.

> So perhaps it isn't so much that the simulation of the body is
> consciousness, ie, it isn't so much that I is consciousness. Consciousness
> is not simply consciousness of I, but of I and Other. So perhaps
> consciousness is something that requires both the simulation of the world
> and the simulation of the body, but is not identical with or solely
> operative within either?
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com

If consciousness is a simulation, then its code is necessarily self-modifying,
since the universe (I and the Other) is an ever-mutating being.

Can this be called "learning", in its deepest sense?

And, if the boundaries between I and the Other are blurred by the immensity of
the universe, then maybe the concept of "self" becomes unimportant.

In that sense, can it be said that "self-modification" is just an illusion? Is
it just the appearance of something that is changing itself without the aid of
and external entity, but it is really being influenced (invisibly, in real and
non-real time) by the whole universe?

e.