Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 26 Dec 2011, at 18:35, David Nyman wrote: On 26 December 2011 16:23, Bruno Marchal wrote: On reflection, this distinction can be made explicit in two ways: either they are distinct and separable (i.e. physico-computational dualism), or they are ultimately indistinguishable (i.e. frank eli

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 26 Dec 2011, at 23:49, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 11:34:52AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is not used in Maudlin's argument, but in your extension to handle multiversal supervenience. You might make this precise, because I don't see the point. But the best ans

Zombies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViJH5nHpn_c We don't need awareness to behave like we are aware. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this g

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 27 December 2011 10:42, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Of course, when consciousness is taken seriously into account, we can sense > some incoherence, but empirically, this is the hard part to convey, and > without MGA/Maudlin, I have not been able to convince of the "frank > incoherence". The "frank

Re: If DA is correct then Bostrom's super humans are NOT

On 12/27/2011 2:58 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/26/2011 11:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/27/2011 1:20 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/26/2011 9:42 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 4:56 PM, meekerdb > wrote: "What law of physics do they [ Dyson spher

Re: Movie Graph Argument

On 27 Dec 2011, at 07:49, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 06:10:34PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: Agreed. As I said, I never had a problem with the conclusion, just the argument. Also, I am concerned about any disproof of physical supervenience (regardless of the primitivit

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 26 Dec 2011, at 22:45, David Nyman wrote: On 26 December 2011 19:50, Craig Weinberg wrote: Not if the sense of dualism *is* the primitive. My comments, like the OP, were directed towards the assumptions of the computational theory of mind, and the various ways in which this is general

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 26 Dec 2011, at 23:37, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 01:08:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Dec 2011, at 12:06, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 11:09:27AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Dec 2011, at 02:00, Russell Standish wrote: Good analog

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 26 Dec 2011, at 20:49, meekerdb wrote: On 12/26/2011 11:37 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 26 December 2011 17:59, meekerdb wrote: Or a neutral monism in which they are different ways of organizing the same data - as quantum field theory can be done with either fields or particles. Yes, pe

Re: If DA is correct then Bostrom's super humans are NOT

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 03:29:00AM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 12/27/2011 2:58 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >On 12/26/2011 11:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > >>On 12/27/2011 1:20 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >>>On 12/26/2011 9:42 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 4:56 PM, meekerdb ... s

Re: If DA is correct then Bostrom's super humans are NOT

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:20 AM, meekerdb wrote: "I'm an environmentalist and my solution is (a) efficiency" > I'm all for efficiency, only a fool would not be, but it's not a solution to global warming or the energy shortage; its simple Economics 101, if things become more efficient, if energ

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 26 Dec 2011, at 18:48, meekerdb wrote: On 12/26/2011 2:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even if the physics is not concrete, but purely phenomenological as indicated by steps 1-7 of the UDA, and if the consciousness supervenes on it, it is still physical supervenience, surely. Not in the us

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 26 Dec 2011, at 23:00, meekerdb wrote: On 12/26/2011 1:45 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 26 December 2011 19:50, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Not if the sense of dualism *is* the primitive. My comments, like the OP, were directed towards the assumptions of the computational theory of mind,

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 27 Dec 2011, at 13:59, David Nyman wrote: On 27 December 2011 10:42, Bruno Marchal wrote: Of course, when consciousness is taken seriously into account, we can sense some incoherence, but empirically, this is the hard part to convey, and without MGA/Maudlin, I have not been able to co

Re: An analogy for Qualia

On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: "An apple isn't an apple unless an *actual* worm can live in it." A simulated apple is a perfectly real and objective phenomenon, it's true that a real worm can't live in one but a simulated worm can. It's important not to confuse levels h

Re: An analogy for Qualia

On Dec 27, 4:22 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >   "An apple isn't an apple unless an *actual* worm can live in it." > > A simulated apple is a perfectly real and objective phenomenon, it's true > that a real worm can't live in one but a simulated

Re: An analogy for Qualia

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: "A simulated flame will do anything your simulation proscribes. That's > why it's not real." A simulated flame will do things that you can not predict and will surprise you even if you are the one who wrote the simulation program. Even in a

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 26 Dec 2011, at 05:47, Joseph Knight wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 23 Dec 2011, at 20:16, Joseph Knight wrote: >> >> >>> >>> The same problem arises in *Part 2*. Bruno claims that we ar

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 12/27/2011 4:59 AM, David Nyman wrote: The "frank incoherence" comment was directed towards the case where, rejecting any form of dualism, one grasps the "single primitive" horn of the dilemma in the form of a primitively-physical monism, rather than the arithmetical alternative. But for tho

Re: Zombies

On 12/27/2011 6:53 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViJH5nHpn_c We don't need awareness to behave like we are aware. How are you interpreting this? That the people were not aware of Brown's message, or that they weren't aware of raising their hands? Or just that the