Re: computationalism and supervenience

From: 1Z <peterdjones.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:00:55 -0000

David Nyman wrote:

> Why talk of zombies? A zombie is a being that is supposedly conceivable
> (though not to me) as being 'unconscious' despite apparently possessing
> the structural/ behavioural prerequisites of consciousness. I was
> referring to the issue that, if the characteristics of consciousness
> are indeed correlated with specific physical activities, then aspects
> of consciousness would necessarily *co-vary* with physical
> instantiation. To avoid this, comp would need to adopt a substitution
> level that preserved the invariance of whatever 'physical activities'
> were deemed relevant to consciousness (as I suggest above).

Computationalism deems that no pphsycial activity is essential
to consicousnes (except insofar as it is essential to computation).

However, "comp" may not be the same as computationalism.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Sep 04 2006 - 18:02:53 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST