|
Bruno, Stathis, Thank you Stathis for the summary. I do have the paper now and I will read it carefully. Based on Sathis summary I still believe that Maudlin is fallacious. A computer program equivalent to Maudlin's construction can be written as: IF (Input = -27098217872180483080234850309823740127) THEN (Output = 78972398473024802348523948518347109) ELSE Call Conscious_Subroutine ENDIF. If the input 27098217872180483080234850309823740127 is always given then the ELSE clause is never invoked. The point is that to write the above piece of code, Maudlin must go through the trouble of calculating perhaps on his hand calculator the answer 78972398473024802348523948518347109 that the Conscious_Subroutine would have produced had it been called. (Notice the conditional tense indicating the counterfactual). He then inserts the answer in the IF clause at programming time. In so doing he must instantiate in his own mind and/or calculator the function of the Conscious_Subroutine for the particular case in which input = 27098217872180483080234850309823740127, If the single numeral input is replaced by a function with multiple numerical inputs, Maudlin trick could be expanded by using tables to store the output and instead of using an IF statement, Maudlin could use a CASE statement. But then, Maudlin would have to fill up the whole table with the answers that the Conscious_Subroutine would have produced. In the ultimate case you could conceive of a huge table that contains all the answers that the Conscious_Subroutine would ever answer to any question. This table however must be filled up. In the process of filling up the table you must instantiate all state of consciousness of the Conscious_Subroutine. Bruno, says: BTW I thought you did understand the physics/psychology (theology/computer-science/number-theory) reversal. What makes you changing your mind? (just interested). I did not change my mind. I just believe that Maudlin's reasoning is faulty. By calculating the output Maudlin inserts himself and possibly his calculator in the conscious process. To understand the insertion of Maudlin into the consciousness of The Conscious_Subroutine, you must agree that this consciousness is independent of time, space, substrate and level. This Maybe is the Moral of Maudlin's Machinations...mmmm? George Bruno Marchal wrote:
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- |
- SV: Barbour's mistake: An alter... Lennart Nilsson
- Re: SV: Barbour's mistake: An a... Bruno Marchal
- SV: SV: Barbour's mistake: An a... Lennart Nilsson
- Re: SV: SV: Barbour's mistake: ... Bruno Marchal
- Re: SV: Barbour's mistake: An a... jamikes
- Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platon... David Nyman
- Maudlin's argument George Levy
- Re: Maudlin's argument Bruno Marchal
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) George Levy
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) Bruno Marchal
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) George Levy
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) George Levy
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) Russell Standish
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) David Nyman
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) Brent Meeker
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) Bruno Marchal
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) David Nyman
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) jamikes
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) David Nyman
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) jamikes
- Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument) George Levy

