On 7/12/2019 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have only precise definition and theorem. You can always cricicze definitions, but then provide better one please.
When you are defining something that everyone supposedly knows, then the definition is ostensive. A descriptive definition must pick out that thing from all the possible known things.
The definition given here justify why ([]p & <>t & p) describe qualia, and why we recover quanta from the wearability of some type of qualia among different universal machine.
No, it only shows there are some common attributes between the model and qualia. You have picked out those attributes and claimed they define consciousness. But they don't define (demarcate) the consciousness we know ostensively.
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/48987066-19a3-8cb4-b0b5-035e04d92db3%40verizon.net.
