Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 28 Nov 2008, at 10:46, Russell Standish wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:09:01AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> MGA 3 >> ... >> >>> But this reasoning goes through if we make the hole in the film >>> itself. Reconsider the image on the screen: with a hole in the film >>> itself, you get a "hole" in the movie, but everything which enters >>> and >>> go out of the hole remains the same, for that (unique) range of >>> activity. The "hole" has trivially the same functionality than the >>> subgraph functionality whose special behavior was described by the >>> film. And this is true for any subparts, so we can remove the entire >>> film itself. >>> >> I don't think this step follows at all. Consciousness may supervene on >> the stationary unprojected film, > > This, I don't understand. And, btw, if that is true, then the physical > supervenience thesis is already wrong. The > physical supervenience thesis asks that consciousness is associated in > real time and space with the activity of some machine (with MEC).
Then assuming MEC requires some definition of "activity" and consciousness may cease when there is no activity of the required kind. Brent --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
