> PS Abram. I think I will have to meditate a bit longer on your > (difficult) post. You may have a point (hopefully only pedagogical :)
A little bit more commentary may be in order then... I think my point may be halfway between pedagogical and serious... What I am saying is that people will come to the argument with some vague idea of which computations (or which physical entities) they pick out as "conscious". They will compare this to the various hypotheses that come along during the argument-- MAT, MEC, MAT + MEC, "Lucky Alice is conscious", "Lucky Alice is not conscious", et cetera... These notions are necessarily 3rd-person in nature. It seems like there is a problem there. Your argument is designed to talk about 1st-person phenomena. If a 1st-person-perspective is a sort of structure (computational and/or physical), what type of structure is it? If we define it in terms of behavior only, then a recording is fine. If we define it in terms of inner workings, then a recording is probably not fine, but we introduce "magical" dependence on things that shouldn't matter to us... ie, we should not care if we are interacting with a perfectly orchestrated recording, so long as to us the result is the same. It seems like this is independent of the differences between pure-comp / comp+mat. --Abram --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
