On Nov 24, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> If your argument were not merely convincing but definitive, then I
> would not need to make MGA 3 for showing it is ridiculous to endow the
> projection of a movie of a computation with consciousness (in real
> "space-time", like the physical supervenience thesis asked for).

Ok, I think I'm following you now. You're saying that I'm failing to  
provide a definitive argument showing that it is ridiculous to endow  
the projection of a movie of a computation with consciousness. (Or, in  
my alternate thought experiment, I'm failing to provide a *definitive*  
reason why it's ridiculous to endow the "playing back" of the  
previously-computed "block universe" with consciousness.) I concur -  
my arguments are convincing, but not definitive. If MGA 3 (or MGA 4,  
etc.) is definitive, or even just more convincing, so much the better.  
Please proceed!

-- Kory


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