On 17 Dec 2011, at 22:05, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/17/2011 8:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

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.

But it seems like a play on our intuition as to what constitutes a computation. We hypothesize consciousness supervenes on computation because computation is the kind of thing needed to make intelligent (and therefore "conscious") acting machines. But then there is a subtle shift from computation as the basis of intelligent action, to computation as a sequence of physical states to sequence of physical states as the playback of a recording. Then we intuit that something as simple as a playback can't be a computation that would support consciousness - but why should we still regard it as a computation?

To save the physical supervenience thesis, some people does that. But it is a confusion between a computation and a description of a computation.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to