Brent meeker writes: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Peter Jones writes: > > > > > >>>>With physical supervenience, it is possible for the same person to > >>>>supervene on multiple physical objects. What is disallowed is multiple > >>>>persons to supervene on the same physical object. > >>> > >>>That is what is usually understood, but there is no logical reason why > >>>the relationship between the physical and the mental cannot be > >>>one->many, in much the same way as a written message can have > >>>several meanings depending on its interpretation. > >> > >>There is a reason: multiple meanings depend on external observers > >>and interpretations. But who observes the multiverse ? > > > > > > I'm not sure how the multiverse comes into the discussion, but you have > > made the point several times that a computation depends on an observer > > for its meaning. I agree, but *if* computations can be conscious (remember, > > this is an assumption) then in that special case an external observer is > > not > > needed. In fact, that is as good a definition of consciousness as any: it > > is > > that aspect of an entity that cannot be captured by an external observer, > > but only experienced by the entity itself. Once we learn every observable > > fact about stars we know all about stars, but if we learn every observable > > fact about bats, we still don't know what it is like to be a bat. > > Why not? Can't we map bat conscious-computation to human > conscious-computation; > since you suppose we can map any computation to any other. But, you're > thinking, > since there a practical infinity of maps (even a countable infinity if you > allow > one->many) there is no way to know which is the correct map. There is if you > and the > bat share an environment.
You're right that the correct mapping is the one in which you and the bat share the environment. That is what interaction with the environment does: forces us to choose one mapping out of all the possible ones, whether that involves talking to another person or using a computer. However, that doesn't mean I know everything about bats if I know everything about bat-computations. If it did, that would mean there was no difference between zombie bats and conscious bats, no difference between first person knowledge and third person or vicarious knowledge. Stathis Papaioannou _________________________________________________________________ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---