1Z wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> Russell Standish writes:
>>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 09:31:15PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>> It seems to me that the idea of a deterministic machine being conscious is
>>>> assumed to be preposterous, for no good reason. I believe that I could have
>>>> acted differently even with identical environmental inputs, which is what
>>>> the feeling of "free will" is. However, it is possible that I might *not*
>>>> have been able to act differently: simply feeling that I could have done so
>>>> is not evidence that it is the case. And even if it were the case, due to
>>>> true quantum randomness or the proliferation of branches in the multiverse
>>>> leading to the effect of first person indeterminacy, it does not follow 
>>>> that
>>>> this is necessary for consciousness to occur.
>>> It is true that Maudlin's argument depends on the absurdity of a recording
>>> being conscious. If you can accept a recording as being conscious, then  you
>>> would have trouble in accepting the conclusion that counterfactuals are
>>> relevant.
>> That's what I'm disputing. You can have a machine handling counterfactuals, 
>> like
>> a thermostat, that aren't conscious (not much, anyway), and machines not
>> handling counterfactuals, like a complex computer or human with rigidly
>> constrained inputs, that is conscious.
> Computer always have counterfactuals, because there changing one part of them
> (whether data or programme) has an effect on the overall behaviour. Changing 
> one
> part of a recording (e.g splicing a film) changes only *that* part.

But a branch in a program need not change very much.  It seems that now you are
introducing a new critereon, a degree of "counterfactualness" required for 

Brent Meeker

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

Reply via email to