On 14 May 2014 11:15, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/13/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Turing **emulation** is only meaningful in the context of emulating one >> part relative to another part that is not emulated, i.e. is "real". >> >> If you say so. We can still listen to the machine, and compare with >> nature. >> >> When we compare with nature we find that some things exist and some >> don't. >> > > Like other worlds don't exist, or atoms don't exist ... the question > about what exists hasn't been answered yet. Or indeed the question about > what it means for something to exist. > > So is it your view that no matter what comp predicts it's not falsified > because it may be true somewhere else? >
I find it hard to read that into what I wrote. (Unless "no matter what comp predicts" is a slightly awkward, but potentially rather funny, pun?) But anyway, no that isn't my view. Either comp is true or it isn't, which is to say, either consciousness is Turing emulable at some level, or it isn't. And if it is, either there is some flaw in what Bruno derives from that assumption, or there isn't. -- 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/d/optout.
