On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> You miss my point. the brain is not replaced. It is just not functionning at > all. The cosmic rays supplies only the motor control ouputs. It is much less > information than a supply of the whole brain. Yet he answers the student > correctly, and has the right behavior. *we* know he is just lucky. is there > consciousness? > The question is tricky. Eventually consciousness is just not attached to > moving bodies at all. Eventually the bodies does not "really" exists outside > consciousness. We consider first replacement of a volume of brain tissue with saline. By amazing luck, the molecules at the interface between the saline and the normal tissue through thermal motion and radioactive decay behave just as they would have before the replacement. The person therefore experiences no change in consciousness. Then more and more brain tissue is replaced with saline and the same amazing luck prevails: the brain functions normally and consciousness is normal - or else we get partial zombies. Eventually, there is only a thin shell of neurons and consciousness is unchanged. Finally, there is only one neuron left, then one molecule from the one neuron, then no neurons at all - just normal saline and the muscles. And consciousness is unchanged at each point, otherwise we could have partial zombies. Where does this thought experiment go wrong? >>> Imagine that the student don't ask any question. Then the cosmic rays >>> needs >>> only to make it looks just quiet behind its desk. No neurons works at >>> all, >>> and the cosmic rays supplies very little information in its cerebral stem >>> so >>> that he does not fall. Is the guy a zombie? >> >> Yes, but he could be unconscious and propped up at his desk with a >> normal brain as well. > > But in this experience, it did not. > > Look we both agree that comp makes sense, and that there is no partial > zombie. This is enough for showing that comp entails the 323 principle, but > that let no choice: we have to attribute consciousness to the > logico-arithmetical relations emulating computations, and physics eventually > is reduced into machine's bio-psych-theo-logy, part of arithmetic and the > inside points of view of arithmetic (like Bp, Bp & p, etc...). > > I am no more sure you still see that comp implies the reversal > physics/arithmetic, which would mean you change your mind since the last > exposition of the Movie Graph. We might need to come back on this (many > others still dont' see the point, I think). No, I still agree. I think the above thought experiment where the muscle activity alone would seem to preserve consciousness shows that there is something wrong with the physical supervenience thesis. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
