On 8/7/2018 6:51 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Kind of depends on what you mean by "experienced physics of the observer". Does that mean experience of the classical world or does it include the physics of QM which is inferred by the observer but not directly experienced. If the former, supervenience might well fail, while still holding for the latter."Yes, Doctor" appears to wrap up the idea that the computational mind cannot be in superposition of mind states, supporting Albert and Loewer's position over that of primitive physical supervenience. Nevertheless, physical supervenience can be rescued in a weaker form (as I argue it must) of mind supervenience on phenomenal physics (experienced physics of the observer). That seems a bit circular.Why is it circular?
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
