On 21 Feb 2009, at 07:35, Brent Meeker wrote:

> Stephen Paul King wrote:
>> Hi Stathis,
>>    A question : Is is incorrect of me to infer that the psychological
>> criterion of personal identity discussed in Shoemaker's book and,  
>> by your
>> statement below, used by a predominance of members of this list is  
>> one that
>> treats conscious self-awareness as an epiphenomena arrising from a  
>> Classical
>> system and that it is, at least tacitly, assumed that quantum  
>> effects have
>> no supervenience upon any notion of Consciousness?
>>    While I welcome the rejection of notion of "Souls" which are in
>> principle non-verifiable, could we be endulging in meaningless  
>> chatter about
>> computerizing consciousness if we do not first determen that  
>> consciousness
>> is a purely classical epiphenomena? After all we are repeatedly  
>> told that it
>> is the classical view of the Universe and all within it is a theory  
>> long ago
>> refuted.
> There's no inconsistency between the universe being quantum  
> mechanical,
> while human thought processes are essentially classical.  The  
> classical
> world emerges from the quantum in the limit of large action.

I find this most plausible. And I think that this does not contradict  
the fact that comp makes the quantum itself emerging from all  
computations, which are generally definable in pure classical  
arithmetic, combinators, etc.
There should be a back and forth between bits and qubits.  
(Assuming ...).


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 

Reply via email to