2009/1/13 Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>:
> In human consciousness, as instantiated by brains, there is a process in which
> signal/information is not local, it is distributed in spacetime and is
> causally which means, per relativity, that you cannot make any unique
> snapshot and label it "the state". I don't go so far as to claim that
> consciousness *must be* instantiated in this way, but I think there must be
> something that makes the "states" part of a process - not just snapshots.
> gets around the problem of defining states by assuming a digital Turing like
> process, but then he has to provide something besides spacetime to make the
> of states a sequence; which is he does by invoking the requirement that they
> a computation. I have some doubts as to whether this is enough, but at least
> is something.
It comes down to whether the brain is Turing emulable. If it is, then
I see no problem describing it in terms of a sequence of discrete
states. The question then arises whether the causal links between the
states in an intact digital computer are necessary to give rise to
consciousness, which is what I thought you were claiming, or whether
the same states in disconnected fashion would achieve the same thing.
Opponents of computationalism such as John Searle have argued that if
a Turing machine can give rise to consciousness then the disconnected
states would also have to give rise to consciousness, which is then
taken as a reductio against computationalism. The alternative way,
saving computationalism, is, I think, Bruno's: it isn't the physical
states giving rise to consciousness, but the computation as Platonic
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at