On 22 Dec 2011, at 23:48, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 03:53:09PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
When I say that the movie is thinking, it is in the frame of both
comp *and* the physical supervenience thesis, and it is to get the
reductio ad absurdum.
OK - but how does supervenvience cause the reductio in this case? Or
is it COMP that causes the reductio? Or must it be the conjunction. I
It comes with the conjunction. The physical activity is shown to be
arbitrary for the execution of an algorithm. This shows that if we
keep comp, we cannot associate consciousness with the physical
activity, but with the "causal" (in the computer science term) pattern
which makes the computation, at the correct level.
From a logical point of view, we can add a primitive matter as
necessary, like we can add a God, or a primitive consciousness. What
the argument shows is that comp makes those things playing no role
from the first person points of view of the machine. So why to add
something we know nothing about (that kind of gap-explanation concept)
when they can have no perceptible role. Occam does the rest.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at