On 10/7/2015 2:14 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 7 October 2015 at 17:09, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
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.
If the brain is Turing emulable then the emulation can be run on a
general purpose computer, such as the one I am using now, provided it
has enough memory. I can at any point save to disk, shut down the
computer, and come back to it at a later time. What happens as a
result of the interruption? Nothing, I say, unless you break the
supervenience thesis, since the program runs exactly the same.
Yes, I said "probably not". I qualified it because the implicit
assumption is that conscious thought is supervening on the computer
processes and so you might wonder about what thoughts occur as registers
are read off onto the disk and later as they are reloaded. Those
things are abstracted away in ideal von Neuman computers, Turing
machines and other mathematical abstractions of computation.
But aside from that, my original point was that mental states m1-m2-m3
are instantiated by something like brain "states"
s1-s2-s3-....-s2345-s2346-s2347. And there's no sharp demarcation
between m1 and m2 in terms of the brain states.
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.