Russell Standish writes:

> If the same QM state is associated with different observer moments,
> you must be talking about some non-functionalist approach to
> consciousness. The QM state, by definition, contains all information
> that can be extracted from observation.

Functionalism explicitly allows that different physical states may implement 
the same observer moment. For example, OM1 could be implemented on a 
computer running Mac OS going through physical state S1, or by an equivalent 
program running on the same computer emulating Windows XP on Mac OS 
going through state S2. In this way, there is potentially a large number of 
distinct physical states S1, S2... Sn on the one machine all implementing OM1. 

Is there any reason to suppose inclusion of a physical state in this set S1... 
Sn 
prevents it from implementing any OM other than OM1? It seems that you would 
quickly run out of useful states on a finite state machine if this were so. 
Perhaps
it would be possible in the case of any state Si to reverse engineer a language 
or operating system under which Si is implementing OM1 (I don't know if this 
can be shown rigorously), which would mean that any Si implementing another 
observer moment OM2 would also be implementing OM1. The conclusion would 
be that the relationship between QM states and OMs could be one->many.

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 everything-list@googlegroups.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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to