On 12 May 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 11 May 2015 at 19:14, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] But if the notion of physical
supervenience cannot be ruled out,
then the way is open for primitive physicality. The comp argument,
which claims that the appearance of the physical can be extracted
from the UD running in Platonia, has no greater claim to credence
than the physicalist's claim that mathematics is a human
invention,
extracted from our experience of the physical world.
The choice is actually between whether a recording can instantiate
computation and hence consciousness, or not (assuming, as usual
during this discussion, that consciousness exists and is Turing
emulable, which I believe means it doesn't contain oracles,
hypercomputers, etc). If a recording can instantiate consciousness
then physical supervenience, far from failing, is in fact
strengthened, in that consciousness can supervene on more things
than we imagined it could.
Yes, that seems to be what would be implied.
The choice between these might reduce to nothing more than
personal
preference.
Yes, although ISTM that a recording doesn't perform a general-
purpose computation, but only - at most - a specific one. But given
determinism, I'm not sure whether that matters or not.
The fact that projecting the film isn't a general purpose computer
seems to me to be a red herring. It was never claimed that
projecting the film of the brain substrate instantiated general
consciousness -- the only claim ever made here is that this
projection recreates the conscious moment that was originally
filmed. That is all that is required. General purpose computing and
counterfactual correctness are all beside the point. If the original
conscious moment is recreated, then the film is a computation in any
sense that is necessary to produce a conscious moment. This is
sufficient to undermine the claim that consciousness does not
supervene on the physical body.
The matter of whether the physical is primitive or not is also a red
herring. No such assumption is required in order to show that the
MGA fails to prove its point.
It is a reductio ad absurdum. If consciousnesss requires the physical
activity and only the physical activity, then the recording is
conscious. But anyone knowing what is a computation should understand
that the recording does not compute more than a trivial sequence of
projection, which is not similar to the computation of the boolean
graph.
Bruno
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.
