Actually I'd like to know where the contradiction is too (and I have read Bruno's papers, and "The Amoeba's Secret", and of course Bruno has done his best to teach me some modal logic...)
...but I still have difficulty following the MGA. It has been explained (at least at times) as showing that "if phys supervenience holds, then a recording of a conscious computation would also be conscious" - and (I'm told) this is absurd. Bruce said (I think) that although this *seems* absurd, it may not be. That is, one can't argue from incredulity. That seems like a reasonable comment. The MGA also appears - to me, at least - to show that (1) (assuming phys sup) the same conscious state could supervene on two different physical states (AND or OR for example) (2) (assuming p.s.) quite a lot of the physical stuff could be removed from the setup without making a difference. (3) (assuming p.s.) Broken gates, say, could be driven to give the correct output by playing back *some* of a recording, giving a mix of recording and computation All the above seems to put dents in physical supervenience, but I can't see an outright contradiction - which probably means I have missed something important. So, I'd really like to know - what contradiction? :-) -- 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.
