Bruno Marchal writes:
> > It is consistent with Maudlin's paper to say consciousness supervenes
> > on no
> > physical activity - i.e. on computation as Platonic object -
> I did not have problem with the expression "platonic object" but be
> careful because it makes some people believe (cf Peter Jones) that we
> are reifying numbers and mathematical objects. This would be a mistake
> only second to Aristotle reification of the notion of matter
> > but it is also consistent
> > to say that it supervenes on a recording, or on any physical activity,
> > and that
> > perhaps if there were no physical universe with at least a single
> > quantum state
> > there would be no consciousness. Admittedly the latter is inelegant
> > compared to
> > the "no physical supervenience" idea, but I can't quite see how to
> > eliminate it
> > completely.
> I think you are right, but it seems to me that at that point (still
> more after the translation of the UDA in arithmetic) to really believe
> that a recording can have all consciousness experiences would be like
> to believe that, despite the thermodynamical explanation, cars are
> still pull by (invisible) horses. In any *applied* math there is an
> unavoidable use of Ockham razor. The movie graph or Maudlin's Olympia
> makes it as minimal as possible.
It seems there is a contest of absurdities: that consciousness can supervene on
a recording, or any physical process, or no physical process. Maudlin
thinks all of these are absurd, you think the first two are absurd but not the
I think all three are equally... a little bit absurd, but not absurd enough to
off computationalism as the best theory of consciousness.
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
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