On 10/6/2015 1:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 6 Oct 2015, at 2:45 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/5/2015 6:24 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 6 Oct 2015, at 11:29 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/5/2015 5:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
From this comment it seems that you have an odd idea of how a person survives
from moment to moment, as if they have a soul that needs to be transferred from
one body to the other. That isn't how it works. If A1 survives as a later
entity A2, it is necessary and sufficient that A1 and A2 have certain physical
and psychological properties. No spark or soul needs to jump from A1 to A2, and
they neither need to have any matter in common nor do they need to have any
physical continuity, since these factors have no effect on experience.
I disagree with that last. It's commonly assumed, because with shut our eyes and imagine
scenes and we can compose dialog in our heads; but I think it is a mistake to think these
can happen independent of some underlying physics - even if it's not
"primitive" physics (whatever that is) which Bruno dismisses.
But lack of physical continuity will not necessarily make a subjective
difference, even if physics is needed to instantiate consciousness.
Not necessarily if it is at a very low level, e.g. atoms. But if it's something
noticeable, some difference in hormone levels, ... it will make a difference in thoughts.
If the thought sequence can different with the things happening at the physical level of
say neurons then it implies that supervenience is false and the mental and physical can
go their own way (which is what we call "delusional").
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. I meant that if the normal
sequence of brain states is s1-s2-s3 with corresponding mental states m1-m2-m3
and s2 is omitted, there is nothing in m3 to give any indication of the
discontinuity. Of course, normally s2 is necessary in order to generate s1, but
that doesn't change the argument.
But I think that's wrong. Brains are not like ideal von Neumann
computers or Turing machines that have "brain states" corresponding to
"mental states". If you simulated a brain using a computer you would
find that an enormous number of "brain states" were required to
instantiate a single conscious thought and furthermore the brains states
necessary for one thought overlapped with those necessary for the next
thought. So this overlap at the low level is part of the physical
continuity needed for consciousness. The fact that the physics can be
simulated by discrete computation doesn't imply that the conscious
states are discrete.
Brent
--
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.
