On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 07:10:43PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > 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;
It is, prima facie, no more absurd than consciousness supervening on a block universe. > > > > 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. > How so? The stationary film is a physical object, I would have thought. > > > 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. > If true, then a block universe could not represent the Multiverse. Maybe so, but I think a lot of people might be surprised at this one. > > > > 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. > That is my point - physical supervenience (aka materialism) is not only not contradicted by MEC (aka COMP), but in fact is necessary for to even work. Only what I call naive physicalism, (aka the need for a concrete instantiation of a computer running the UD) is contradicted by MEC. What _is_ interesting is that not all philosophers distinguish between physicalism and materialism. David Chalmers does not, but Michael Lockwood does, for instance. Much of this revolves around the ontological status of emergence. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
