On 29 Nov 2008, at 18:49, Brent Meeker wrote:

>> 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.

We require a notion of physical activity related to a computation for  
having MEC *and* the supervenience thesis.
With MEC alone, we abandon MAT, the computational supervenience thesis  
will have to make any notion of physical causality a statistically   
emerging pattern from (hopefully sharable) first person (plural)  
points of view.


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 

Reply via email to