Le 25-nov.-08, à 02:13, Kory Heath a écrit :
> 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!
So you agree that MGA 1 does show that Lucky Alice is conscious
Normally, this means the proof is finished for you (but that is indeed
what you say before I begun; everything is coherent).
About MGA 3, I feel almost a bit ashamed to explain that. To believe
that the projection of the movie makes Alice conscious, is almost like
explaining why we should not send Roger Moore (James Bond) in jail,
giving that there are obvious movie where he clearly does not respect
the speed limitation (grin). Of course this is not an argument.
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