On 9/08/2016 4:08 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/8/2016 10:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
You seem to be agreeing that this is, at bottom, an empirical
matter. If we do the experiment and duplicate a conscious being,
then separate the duplicates, we could ask one whether or not it
was still aware of its duplicate. If the answer is "No", then we
know that consciousness is localized to a particular physical body.
If the answer is "Yes", then we know that consciousness is
non-local, even though it might still supervene on the physical
bodies.
I don't think that's logically impossible, but it would imply FTL
signaling and hence be inconsistent with current physics. It can't
just be QM entanglement, because it share computation, to make a
difference at X due to a perception at Y requires signal transmission.
Signal transmission or awareness? Non-locality does not entail FLT
signalling -- that makes it local.
?? Faster than light, spacelike, signalling is what is conventionally
called "non-local", as in "non-local hidden variable".
That is one interpretation of non-locality, but that does not apply to
EPR correlations, for instance; the non-locality there is intrinsic,
there is no signalling /per se/.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
