Le 17-juil.-06, à 14:14, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
<x-tad-bigger> I understand up to the point in step 7 where you explain the workings of the UD. You've tried explaining it again a couple of weeks ago, and I think it is clearer every time I look at it, but I still have some difficulties. I will reply to Quentin's post (which is admirably concise) later.
<x-tad-bigger> I think I have more basic difficulties also, like the Maudlin argument re the handling of counterfactuals for consciousness to occur:
It is a bit harder, no doubt. And, according to some personal basic everything philosophy, the Maudlin argument is important of not ....
<x-tad-bigger>is this requirement just to avoid saying that everything implements every computation?
Jacques Mallah makes that point some years ago (in this list), and I think Hal Finney has developed that point. I think their argument are valid. But then I don't think the Putnam-Mallah-Chalmers is really a problem once you get the idea that the physical world emerge from the mathematical world of computations. Personally I have never seen a convincing argument that everything implements every computations, just perhaps some tiny part of some computations.
I will postpone saying more on the movie-graph/Olympia type of argument (if only to avoid to much simultaneous threads and to modulate the difficulties).
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---