On 12 June 2014 12:42, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/11/2014 5:31 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 1:27 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/11/2014 2:48 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >> >> It's just a modal function. I don't see that it "knows" anything. >>> ISTM you are leaping the 3p/1p gap here in a way you consider illegitimate >>> for physical theories. >>> >> >> If beings for argument's sake made of some matter in physical theories >> can know via exploring relations and patterns scientifically in 3p: why >> would the appropriate universal machines/numbers in comp ontology not be >> able to do the same? >> >> >> No reason. But the same question goes both ways. >> >> > Indeed, but there might be a slight advantage for "just a function" to > relate, because that's what it does via agreed upon terms. Whereas with an > entity arising out of matter subject to quantum logic, it's weird that it > would relate at all. Even weirder still that such entity will intuitively > tend to reason classically. PGC > > > If the quantum system can emulate a Turing machine, then it's no weirder > for it to be conscious than an UD. >
Which is comp, isn't it? So what's wrong with Bruno's argument? -- 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.
