On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:33:06PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > >3. A recording of (2) supra being played back. > > Nobody would call that a computation, except to evade comp's > consequences. >
I do, because it is a computation, albeit a rather trivial one. It is not to evade comp's consequences, however, which I already accept from UDA1-7. I insist on the point, because the MGA is about driving an inconsistency between computational and physical supervenience, which requires care and rigour to demonstrate, not careless mislabelling. > > > >Whether (3) preserving consciousness is absurd or not (and I agree > >with Russell that's to much of a stretch of intuition to judge); > > There is no stretch of intuition, the MGA shows that you need to put > magic in the primitive matter to make it playing a role in the > consciousness of physical events. > Where does the MGA show this? I don't believe you use the word "magic" in any of your papers on the MGA. Sorry, but this does seem a rhetorical comment. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
