Re: Implementation

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:45:42 +1000 (EST)

Chris, this is a well thought out reponse, and it persuades me that
the difference between conciousness and nonconciousness could be as
little as the "inert block of wood", precisely because it is a
physically different system. It actually reminds me of the quantum 2
split experiment. An interference pattern is seen, or not seen
according to whether a detector placed at one of the slits is switched
on or not.

Maudlin's argument is important, but perhaps the conclusion is not so
"reductio ad absurdum" as initally thought.


> I've finally had time to read Maudlin's paper, and I've gradually
> been catching up on your discussions on the Implementation thread,
> and I'd like to add my opinions to the mix. I've concluded that
> Maudlin's proof of the incompatibility between physical supervenience
> and a computational theory of consciousness, is without merit. I'll
> try to show where I think he made the errors in his argument.
> Hopefully soon I'll have time to apply this same analysis to some of
> the recent posts.
 ... Stuff deleted ...

> --
> Chris Maloney
> "Knowledge is good"
> -- Emil Faber

Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit,
University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Room 2075, Red Centre
Received on Thu Jul 22 1999 - 19:54:47 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST