Re:

if you have a moment i have a quick question. -=C2? assume for the moment that living things unlike physical=things. have a component that travels faster than light.=C2? . thoughts? or call it x . it wo=ld explain the inability of detection by conventional means. =C2? martin and i are working on game theory of self aw=reness. the evolutionary benefit of what some call consciousnes=. the conjecture is that is no more than a dynamic=error correction system. slow. easily overwhelmed and able to =o simple tasks. if the mathematics of biology and =hysics were symmetrical. physics woudl live in the slowe= than light, and biology in the faster. . =C2? deception and intent in biooogy , none of it in physics.

Dear Jeffrey,

My apologies for not responding s=oner: I was off email for the last few days. Of course thoughts are constructed from neural signals that move much sl=wer just take the suggestion that they =ove faster than light seriously. A couple of First of all, since going faster than light translates into =he ability to send signals this has implicati=ns for game theory. If you know your opponents moves in know yours -- this restricts the set of strategies=to non-cheating, non-deceptive that in such games one should be able to show that Nash equilibria are a=l dilemma, there is no incenti=e for cheating. This is sort of the opposite of

There is a sense in which thought pro=esses are taking place in an extended thr=ughout the brain, so that faster than/slower than light is not so meaningf=1 you and Martin suggest, ther= is probably some pretty strong evolutionary or sense of self reference. Indeed, just to ask the sort of=question, If he does he does this=other thing, I'll do something else, requires a sense of self what one oneself will do in the future. =This does indeed allow for extended and inte=t, which I think we agree are very important at least for human

I'd enjoy talking further so give a call any t=me you like.

Yours,
Seth

tomorw?=C240 lets assume that like a weak signal you can go back but =nly for 1 second before the signal fades. ? an erm correction.

Sure: let's talk tomorrow. Any time in the =fternoon. (Or, we could talk yesterday!) S=th

Dear Jeffrey,

That is poetic!

Well, there is a clear evolutionary advantage to consciousnes= of others and to self-consciousness. That ability to say, if sh= does this, I'll do that, but if she does that, I'll do something =Ise, is key to dealing with others, and directly leads to agreem=nts, deception, etc. That is, having even a simple model =f others' behavior, and of one's own future actions, conveys a str=ng advantage.

Of course, such models are necessar=ly incomplete. When one models oneself, one always leaves=out the vast majority of things that are going on, as you say. In m= paper, 'A Turing test for free will,' I show that the incom=leteness of one's own model of oneself is responsible for on='s inability to predict one's future decisions, a key component of=free will.

Similarly, one'e models of others =re also incomplete, so that other people constantly behave in su=prising and unpredictable ways. Because of the necessary inco=pleteness of our conceptions of ourself and others, error correc=ion is key, as you say. We must operate in a way th=t allows us to function even in the face of constant unknowns. Evolnion drives us towards this error correcting ability.

Although I am phrasing this in a way that is less poetic tha= you! Time for me to tilt the table more to the horizontal for a=bit and watch those balls lazily roll around.

Seth

that is true but the issue is SELF aware =, first. , an error correction within bounds. 40=A0 it is off when walking down the steps, but if you look down and =ry to have it operate , not a good result. it is slow. f=w choices. the error correction will keep you from suicide. - =opefully , unless overwhelmed or exhausted. . as w= know the consious appears to make the moves a few miliseconds after=the firing decison to take action occurs. . the fun question w=s what if there were a limited backwards causality, for living systm=s in fact my concious in the future dicated the firing a few m=liseconds ago. . I thought that two time frames, could e=ist, seperated by a few milisseconds. so the time wouldn= have to be in the same space time frame. one universe slightly ahea= of the other. sort of a spiral.