On 2/3/2014 12:11 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 3 February 2014 19:18, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
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?
Yes.
Would this correspond to an epiphenomenon in your book?
Yes, although as Bruno noted "epiphenomenon" is not a very well defined concept. I'd have
no problem with saying temperature and consciousness are phenomena.
Brent
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
