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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to