On 30 Nov 2008, at 11:57, Russell Standish wrote:

>
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:11:30AM +0100, 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).
>
> I am speaking as someone unconvinced that MGA2 implies an
> absurdity. MGA2 implies that the consciousness is supervening on the
> stationary film.


?  I could agree, but is this not absurd enough, given MEC and the  
definition of the physical superveneience thesis;


>
>
> BTW - I don't think the film is conscious by virtue of the
> counterfactuals issue, but that's a whole different story. And
> "Olympization" doesn't work, unless we rule out the multiverse.
>
>>>
>>> Why does the physical supervenience require that all  
>>> instantiations of
>>> a consciousness be dynamic? Surely, it suffices that some are?
>>
>>
>> What do you mean by an instantiation of a dynamical process which is
>> not dynamic. Even a block universe describe a dynamical process, or a
>> variety of dynamical processes.
>>
>
> A block universe is nondynamic by definition. But looked at another
> way, (ie from the inside) it is dynamic. It neatly illustrates why
> consciousness can supervene on a stationary film (because it is
> stationary when viewed from the inside).

OK, but then you clearly change the physical supervenience thesis.


> The "film", however does need
> to be sufficiently rich, and also needs to handle counterfactuals
> (unlike the usual sort of movie we see which has only one plot).


OK. Such a film could be said to be a computation. Of course you are  
not talking about a stationary thing, which, be it physical or  
immaterial, cannot handle counterfactuals.

>
> The problem is that eliminating the brain from phenomenal experience
> makes that experience even more highly probable than without. This is
> the Occam catastrophe I mention in my book. Obviously this contradicts
> experience.
>
> Therefore I conclude that supervenience on a phenomenal physical brain
> is necessary for consciousness.


It is vague enough so that I can interpret it favorably through MEC.


Bruno




> I speculate a bit that this may be due
> to self-awareness, but don't have a good argument for it. It is the
> "elephant in the room" with respect to pure MEC theories.
>
>> Sorry for being a bit short, I have to go,
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics                           
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >

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