On 10/6/2015 10:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 7 October 2015 at 07:51, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 10/6/2015 1:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 6 Oct 2015, at 2:45 PM, Brent Meeker
<meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 10/5/2015 6:24 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 6 Oct 2015, at 11:29 AM, Brent Meeker
<meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 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.
If you simulated a brain on a computer and paused the computation for
a while, would it make any difference to the consciousness generated?
In an ideal computer, like a Turing machine, probably not. But that's
because the brain would have to be simulated on a much finer time scale
than that of conscious thoughts or experiences. The brain simulation
would have include simulation of neuronal signals in transit and
overlapping other signals with certain timing.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.