meekerdb wrote:
On 5/3/2015 11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
Also "yes doctor" assumes that consciousness is retained when
something computationally equivalent is substituted; which is why
Olympia and the MG need to be counterfactually correct. But to
realize the counterfactual correctness would mean including within
the static record a very large part of the environment, i.e.
everything within the past lightcone that might effect the stream of
consciousness.
Can you explain to me why counterfactual correctness is necessary for
a recording to be conscious?
I don't know. It seems to be assumed by Maudlin and Marchal, but I
think Russell Standish disagrees. I can understand that it's motivated
by the intuition that just an inert recording can't be conscious;
consciousness is a process and it is distinguished among processes by
being a computation. And what distinguishes a computation?...the
possibility of dealing with different inputs. Hence the assumption that
counterfactual correctness is essential.
Something motivated by intuition hardly amounts to a compelling reason
to accept the necessity for counterfactual correctness.
What distinguishes a computation?... A very good question. why is a
recording of this particular computation not equivalent to this
particular computation? Dealing with different inputs is not an issue
for a recording -- it doesn't have any different inputs to deal with! It
all seems arbitrary and totally ad hoc to me.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
