On 23 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
ROGER: OK, but computers can't experience anything,
it would be simulated experience. Not arbitrarily available.
But that's what the brain does, simulate experience from the point of
view of the owner or liver of the experience. According to some
theory. You can't talk like if you knew that this is false.
ROGER: Simulated experience would be objective, such
as is given by the text of a novel (knowledge by description). True
experience is the subjective experience of the mind --knowledge
by aquaintance. These are obviously substantially different.
The term silulated experience is ambiguous, and I should not have use.
I wiuld say that by definition of comp, simulated experience =
BRUNO: You are right, it is not the material computer who thinks,
physical brains who thinks, it is the owner (temporarily) of the
brain, or of the computers which does the thinking (and that can
include a computer itself, if you let it develop beliefs).
ROGER: I don't think so.
The owner of the brain is the self.
But although the owner of a computer will have a
self, so would anybody else involved in creating
the computer or software also have one.
Are trying to say that I or anybody else can cause
the computer to be conscious ?
No. Only the computer, or a similar one. Actually *all* similar one
existing in arithmetic, in their relative ways.
If wave collapse causes
consciousness, there are objective theories of wave collapse
called decoherence theories which seem more realistic to me.
Decoherence needs MWI to work.
But I can't seem to see how these could work on a computer.
Right. the idea that consciousness cause the collapse of the wave (an
idea which already refutes special relativity) is inconsistent with
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at