On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:25:40AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I agree with you in general, but I can agree a little bit with Liz > too, as I find Brent slightly sneaky on this issue, but all in all > Brent is rather polite and seems sincere. Yet his critics (of step > 8) is not that clear. But then that is why we discuss. Anyone seeing > Brent's point can help to make it clearer. >
His point is that he doesn't believe input free computations can be conscious - there must always be some referrent to the environment (which is noisy, counterfactual, etc). If so, it prevents the MGA, and Maudlin's argument, from working. I guess for Brent that even dream states still have some referrent to the environment, even if it be some sort of random synaptic noise. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
