Jesse Mazer wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> >
> >Jesse Mazer wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >Those specifications have to make physical processes NOT turing
> > > >emulable, for Chalmers' idea being coherent. The price here would be an
> > > >explicit NON-COMP assumption, and then we are lead outside my working
> > > >hypothesis. In this way his dualism is typically non computationalist.
> > >
> > > Why would Chalmers' version of dualism be non-computationalist?
> >
> >That would depend on whether you are dealing with
> >consciousness-is-computation computationalism
> >or cognition-is-computation computationalism.
> Even with the consciousness-is-computation computationalism, it depends on
> what your definition of "is" is...if you understand it to mean that a
> conscious experience is nothing more than an alternate way of describing a
> certain computation, I suppose Chalmers would not be a "computationalist" in
> this sense, but if you just understand it to mean that the experience and
> the computation are inextricably linked then he still could be called a
> computationalist.

He goes to great lengths to explain the difference between
and identity.

> > > As I
> > > understand him, he does argue that there is a one-to-one relationship
> > > between computations and conscious experiences,
> >
> >But not an identity relationship.
> But what if the one-to-one relationship is not understood to be contingent,
> i.e. the relationship between first-person qualia and third-person
> descriptions of computations is the same in all possible worlds?

That's supervenience under logical or natural laws.

> > >  and he certainly believes
> > > that a sufficiently detailed simulation of a brain would *behave* just
> >like
> > > the original.
> >
> >But that is underpinned by psychophysical laws, not identity.
> If the psychophysical laws are a matter of necessary truth, I'm not sure
> this is a meaningful an analogy, "1+1" being equal to "2"
> could be said to be underpinned by the laws of arithmetic, but if these laws
> are necessary ones, then isn't "1+1" also identical with "2"?

If you can't even express qualia mathemtically how
can you have a mathemtically necessary psychophysical law ?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to