Günther, Why does MGA 2 show that SMAT + MEC is inconsistent?
The way I see it, SMAT + MEC should say that a recording of Alice does not count as conscious, because it lacks the proper causal structure (or equivalently, the proper counterfactual behavior). --Abram On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Bruno, > >>> but no! Then we wouldn't have a substrate anymore. >> Oh( That is not true! We still have the projector and the film. We can >> project the movie in the air or directly in your eyes. > > Ok I see now where our intuitions differ (always the problem with > thought experiment) - but maybe we can clear this up and see where it > leads... > >> it is really something people have to meditate. I could have conclude >> in the absurdity of MAT (with MEC) at MGA 2. It is hard for me to take >> people seriously when they argue that the consciousness of Alice >> supervenes on a movie of its brain activity. There is no causality, >> nor computations, during the *projection* of the movie. > > If that is how you see MAT (you require causality) - then I would also > agree -> MGA 2 shows absurdity. > >>Alice's >> experience is related to ALL computations going through those states, >> not to descriptions of those states which can been made and collected >> in other histories. Locally it makes sense to ascribe *that* >> consciousness when you have the mean to interpret (through some >> universal machine) her computational states. > > That is already part of your theory (UDA and all) (as I understand it), > but not included already in COMP or in MAT. > >> [Consciousness of (x,t)] is never [physical states] at (x,t) > > For me, the above expresses the essence of (naive) MAT -> let's call it > NMAT. > > So, clearly: > NMAT: [Consciousness of (x,t)] supervenes on [physical states] at (x,t) > > And on physical states only! Not on the causal relations of these states > (block universe view). > > Your argument goes like this: >> it is: >> [Consciousness of (x,t)] is always all computational states (in the UD >> °) corresponding to that experience. (It is an indexical view of >> reality). > > And I share it IF we can show that MAT+MEC is inconsistent. But I am not > convinced yet. > > For me, the essence of MEC (COMP) is this: > > COMP: there is a level at which a person can be substituted at a digital > level (we don't have to go down to "infinity"), and where this digital > description is enough to reconsitute this person elsewhere and elsewhen, > independent of substrate. > > > NMAT additionally requires that the substrate for COMP be some > "mysterious" substance, and not only a platonic relation. > > My intuition tells me this can't be -> we have to drop either MEC or NMAT. > > But MGA 3, when dropping the boolean gates, violates NMAT, because: > NMAT: [Consciousness of (x,t)] supervenes on [physical states] at (x,t) > > And the physical states relevant where the _states of the boolean graph_ > (the movie projector was just the lucky cosmic ray). > > Do you have different definition for MAT? Do you require causal dynamics > for MAT? > > The problem with NMAT as I define it raises the issue as in the Putnam > paper -> does every rock implement every finite state-automaton? > > Chalmers makes the move to implementation, so introduces causal dynamics. > > So, sophisticated MAT would probably be: > SMAT: [Consciousness of (x,t)] supervenes on [physical states] at (x,t) > over a timespan delta(t) _if_ sufficiently complex causal dynamics are > at work during this timespan relating the physical states. > > > Then I would say: MGA 2 (already) shows that SMAT+MEC are not > compatible. No need for MGA 3. > > For NMAT+MEC (which is problematic for other reasons) MGA 3 is not > convincing. > > Would you agree with this? > > Cheers, > Günther > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
