On 27 Mar 2015, at 01:02, PGC wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 12:43:04 AM UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2015, at 16:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> If my mind is being run on two separate computers, I can't know
which
>> one of the two, and I can't say that my last remembered moment
was run
>> on one or other or my next anticipated moment will be run on one or
>> other. If one computer stops it makes no difference to me and if a
>> third computer running my mind comes online it makes no
difference to
>> me. So effectively there is only one conscious moment. Under
physical
>> supervenience, stopping all the computers stops the conscious
moment.
>
> I am OK. I think Quentin is arguing in the reducto ad absurdum part.
>
> In a sense both Russell is righ (there is only one 1p-experience),
and
> Quentin is right: we can attribute consciousness in each running
(but
> then if we attribute it to the physical activity token: we get the
> absurd conclusion: playing records and real-time consciousness
supervene
> on a static film, etc.
One problem is that this is an invalid "argument from incredulity".
The
fact that you find this conclusion absurd is not an argument against
the
conclusion: it is merely a statement about how you fell about the
conclusion -- which could be right or wrong, and in either case does
not
depend on how you feel about it.
Why or how is anybody arguing that problem is generated or solved by
"how somebody feels about it"?
It's via contradiction/standard reductio: assume conclusion false
and negation to be true, and from this we derive contradiction. If
latter is the case, conclusion must be true.
Only two things are required: law of excluded middle and if
statement implies something false, it must be false. PGC
Except that we didn't need here the excluded middle. To imply (~A)
from (A -> f) is already valid in intuitionist logic. What the
intuitionist rejects is to imply A from (~A -> f). In hat case, for
them, you did only prove ~~A.
Good point anyway. But I think Bruce missed the stroboscop argument,
or equivalent.
Bruno
I think there are important points buried here and I will attempt to
explore them in more detail in another post -- I am rather short of
time
today.
Bruce
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
