Hi Bruno, > I can agree for "all computational states" of some (universal) machine. > If you don't precise what you mean by state it is a bit too much > general. Imo.
I mean either: all computational states OR all physical states -> depending on whether comp or phys is true. Where the difference would then only be that with phys the states where not turing emulable. > that "17 is not a prime number". Those are false statements, but > assuming comp, your consciousness of the statement "17 is not a prime > number" will supervene on the TRUE statement that some machine have > access the state corresponding to your belief that 17 is not prime. The > true arithmetical statement on which consciousness will have to > supervene are just description of computation under the form : "the > machine XXX has got the state YYY from the input RRR". Ok thanks - this is clear now. > Maudlin assume PHYS and thus concludes there is a problem with MECH. > I assume MECH and thus conclude there is a problem with PHYS. > But the reasoning are equivalent. Yes, that is how I understood it. > All right? It seems to me you have everything to understand the seven > steps of the UDA. You are OK with 1...7. My point was that if you > don't believe in arithmetical (as a particular case of philosophical) > zombie, the the Movie Graph Argument is not needed. If you don't > believe in what I would call physical zombie, and yet believe in > primary physical things, then the MGA is needed (step 8). All right? I understand Step 8 as showing that if one accepts COMP, one has to associate conscious experience with abstract computations, not with physical implementations - by appeal to a thought experiment, which leaves me a bit queasy; but I tend to agree. I still do not understand what an "arithmetical zombie" should be - do you mean a computational state which would not be conscious? Now if I don't believe in arithmetical zombies, why would I not need step 8 to exclude the physical universe? I could dispute that arithemetics by itself without physical implementation has no consequence whatever, for instance. Cheers, Günther --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---