Re: Question about physical supervenience

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:49:37PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > Is that not also true of consciousness supervening on a computers > execution of a program? What it is conscious "of" depends on its > relation to the environment - e.g. what the programmer intended to > represent. So, while

Re: Question about physical supervenience

On 5/15/2017 7:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:04AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: We had extended arguments starting from "Why isn't the-rock-that-computes everything conscious?" I think your analysis above needs to be extended to cover that. You seem to take

Re: ​Movie argument

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > they could not, for purely logical reason, predict the bit of information > they just got. > ​The information they "just got" is that the man who saw M became the M man and the many who saw W became the W man, and I

Re: Paradox and supervenience (was Question about physical supervenience)

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​ >> ​T​ >> here is no mathematical reason time or space or anything else can't be >> continuous >> ​,​ >> nor can mathematics find anything special about the >> ​ >> numbers 1.6*10^-35 >> ​ >> or >> ​ >>

Re: Question about physical supervenience

On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 12:44 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:04AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > We had extended arguments starting from "Why isn't > > the-rock-that-computes everything conscious?" I think your analysis > > above needs to

Re: Question about physical supervenience

On 16 May 2017 at 08:07, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 May 2017, at 22:44, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 15 May 2017 at 15:56, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 15 May 2017, at 12:38, David Nyman wrote: >> >> I've been thinking a bit about physical

Re: Question about physical supervenience

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:47:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 16 May 2017, at 04:44, Russell Standish wrote: > > >On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:04AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> > >>We had extended arguments starting from "Why isn't > >>the-rock-that-computes everything conscious?" I

Re: Question about physical supervenience

On 16 May 2017, at 04:44, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:04AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: We had extended arguments starting from "Why isn't the-rock-that-computes everything conscious?" I think your analysis above needs to be extended to cover that. You seem to take

Re: Question about physical supervenience

On 15 May 2017, at 22:44, David Nyman wrote: On 15 May 2017 at 15:56, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 May 2017, at 12:38, David Nyman wrote: I've been thinking a bit about physical supervenience in the computationalist context and have come to the conclusion that I don't

Re: Paradox and supervenience (was Question about physical supervenience)

On 16 May 2017, at 04:17, John Clark wrote: On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:06 PM, David Nyman wrote: ​>> ​Physics prevents the above paradoxes because all of these thought experiments assume that space or time or both are infinitely divisible, but quantum physics says

Re: ​Movie argument

On 10 May 2017, at 18:57, John Clark wrote: On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​​>> ​I think the guy who remembers being the guy in Helsinki survives, but you think the guy in Helsinki survives, and that's a important distinction because after the