On 6/22/2012 2:55 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2012 11:42 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
You don't need 1p-indeterminacy for this. The independance requires only that if a brain support consciousness in a particular computation not using neuron 323, and if physical supervenience is true, then consciousness can be said to be supported by the same brain, doing the same computation with the neuron 323 being eliminated. Do you agree with this?


That doesn't follow. You are treating consciousness as though it were a single thing to be either 'supported' or 'not supported'. Eliminating 323 would only show that those particular conscious thoughts did not depend on 323, not that 'consciousness' is independent of 323. Some other conscious thoughts may be impossible after eliminating 323.

Brent
--
Hi Brent,

Do you experience consciousness as a fragmented set of events? I do not... It is a "sinlge thing" in the sense that it is an integral whole and not a fragmented group of bits. I do think that we are more in agreement than not...

--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
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