On 29 Mar -1, Marchal wrote:
> Jacques M Mallah wrote
> >So much for your alleged proof. There's nothing in
> >it. It just presents an example of a physical situation in which a
> >computation is not implemented, and claims that consciousness would not be
> >present in that situation.
>
> Euh... I think there is a little more. You really should read Maudlin.
> He is more clear than me. It is in English !
> Maudlin shows that you can take a piece of matter in which
> no computation is implemented, and transform it, without adding
> physical activity, into something in which a computation is implemented.
So where is this writing of his? If you understand what he says
you would be able to outline it. I don't need to tell you, I doubt there
is anything to this new source of mischief which is conveniently not
available on the 'net.
My guess is that it's just an example of a false implementation in
the style of the the 'clock and dial' example of Chalmers. If you look at
my web page you'd see my proposals on that well known problem. Not that
your computationalist ideas could survive any better if there was no
solution to it, math-based or physics-based it would make no difference
because it's an information thing.
Then again, knowing you, Maudlin's 'proof' is probably something
more trivial.
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (jqm1584.domain.name.hidden)
Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL:
http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Received on Tue Jun 29 1999 - 15:25:13 PDT