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.

Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




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