On 26 June 2014 10:58, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/25/2014 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 25 June 2014 22:01, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > Note that I have not argued that the ability to 3p engineer consciousness >> will do anything to explain or diminish 1p conscious experience. I just >> predict it will become a peripheral fact that consciousness of kind x goes >> with physical processes or computations of type y. > > > As a matter of sociology, you may well be right. But that apart, why > wouldn't such putative 3p "conscious processes" be as vulnerable to > elimination (i.e. reducible without loss to some putative ur-physical > basis) as temperature, computation, or any other physically-composite > phenomenon? > > You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. > Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't > eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a > difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and > eliminating in fact. >
I must admit I can't see that personally. If temperature is, in fact, molecular kinetic energy, then it doesn't actually exist at any level, it's just a convenient fiction, surely? -- 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.
