2008/11/28 Kory Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I still feel like I don't have a handle on how you feel the move to
> Platonia solves these problems. If we imagine the mathematical
> description of filling a 3D grid with the binary digits of PI,
> somewhere within it we will find some patterns of bits that look as
> though they're following the rules to Conway's Life. If we see
> creatures in there, would they be conscious? What about the areas in
> that grid where we find the equivalent of Empty-Headed Alice, where
> most of the cells seem to be "following the rules" of Conway's Life,
> but the section where a creature's "visual cortex" ought to be is just
> filled with zeros? In other words, why doesn't the "partial zombie"
> problem still exist for us in Platonia?
Asking questions like this about platonic objects isn't like asking
the same questions about objects in a physical world. Abstract
threeness is not a kind of picture of what we would recognise as
threeness in the physical world: three objects, or five objects which
could be seen as two lots of two and one lot of one object, or the
Arabic numeral "3". Similarly, you can't point to a picture of a
physical computer and ask whether that is giving rise to a particular
computation in Platonia. Threeness, computations and consciousness
exist eternally and necessarily, and can't be created, destroyed or
I realise this coming close to regarding consciousness as akin to the
religious notion of a disembodied soul. But what are the alternatives?
As I see it, if we don't discard computationalism the only alternative
is to deny that consciousness exists at all, which seems to me
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