On 3 February 2014 19:18, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: My view is that it is not physically undetectable. We just don't know how > to detect it yet. In Bruno's theory a computer whose program is Lobian is > conscious. How would we detect that? By querying the computer. By > studying it's program. Will we experience its consciousness...No. But we > don't measure the chaotic molecular motions we call temperature either, we > infer it from other measurements using a theoretical model to relate the > two.
Well, I was just trying out some possible characterisations of "epiphenomenon" here. But I don't think your're talking about quite the same thing are you? Perhaps you mean that we may discover/develop some tractable level of explanation, deriving ultimately from canonical physical causation, that is 100% co-related with the phenomena of consciousness and hence explains exactly what's going on when some physical system makes claims about its states of consciousness. Is that what you mean by physically detectable, more or less? Would this correspond to an epiphenomenon in your book? David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
