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 OM1 and only OM1, or is it possible that a physical state may implement more than one OM? 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
