On 04 Oct 2011, at 05:33, Brian Tenneson wrote:

## Advertising

From page 17"It is my contention that the only way out of this dilemma is todeny theinitial assumption that a classical computer running a particularprogram cangenerate conscious awareness in the first place."What about the possibility of allowing for a "large number" ofconscious moments that would, in a limit of some sort, approximatecontinuous, conscious awareness? In my mind, I liken the comparisonto that of a radioactive substance and half-life decay formulas. Intruth, there are finitely many atoms decaying but the half-lifedecay formulas never acknowledge that at some point the predictedmass of what's left measures less than one atom. So I'm talkingabout a massive number of calculated conscious moments so that forall intents and purposes, continuous conscious awareness is theobserved result.Earlier on page 17... "its program must only generate a finite sequence of conscious moments."

`I think I agree with you. I think that such a view is the only`

`compatible with Digital Mechanism, but also with QM (without collapse).`

`Consciousness is never generated by the "running of a particular`

`computer". If we can survive with a digital brain, this is related to`

`the fact that we already "belong" to an infinity of computations, and`

`the artificial brain just preserve that infinity, in a way such that I`

`can survive in my usual normal (Gaussian) neighborhoods.`

Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.