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
don't understand.

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to