2011/12/17 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>

> On Dec 17, 7:30 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > N- you can build a machine that implements and can only run 3 but that
> > can't handle counterfactual, but as the computation is the same as 3, it
> > must be as conscious as when it was running on a complete physical
> computer.
> > N+1- you can restore the handling of conterfactual by adding inactive
> > piece. But If N was not conscious, adding inactive pieces shouldn't
> render
> > it conscious.
>
> Conscious of what? It sounds like this assumes that consciousness is a
> binary feature.
>
>
You didn't read, that's not the argument.

It begins by *assuming we have a conscious program*. The argument is not
about what is consciousness, it's about assuming consciousness to be
computational and assuming physical supervenience thesis true and showing a
contradiction.


> Craig
>
> --
> 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.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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.

Reply via email to