Peter Jones writes:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > 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?
> If "this set" is the set of all phsyical states that possibly implement
> OM1, the any physical state either in the set, or doesn't belong there.
But does that mean that a physical state which belongs in this set implements
and only OM1, or is it possible that a physical state may implement more than
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at