Peter Jones writes:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> > Russell Standish writes:
> >
> > > If the same QM state is associated with different observer moments,
> > > you must be talking about some non-functionalist approach to
> > > consciousness. The QM state, by definition, contains all information
> > > that can be extracted from observation.
> >
> > Functionalism explicitly allows that different physical states may implement
> > the same observer moment. For example, OM1 could be implemented on a
> > computer running Mac OS going through physical state S1, or by an equivalent
> > program running on the same computer emulating Windows XP on Mac OS
> > going through state S2. In this way, there is potentially a large number of
> > distinct physical states S1, S2... Sn on the one machine all implementing OM1.
> >
> > Is there any reason to suppose inclusion of a physical state in this set S1... Sn
> > prevents it from implementing any OM other than OM1?
>
> If "this set" is the set of all phsyical states that possibly implement
> OM1, the any physical state either in the set, or doesn't belong there.
But does that mean that a physical state which belongs in this set implements OM1
and only OM1, or is it possible that a physical state may implement more than one
OM?
Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Sun Oct 15 2006 - 19:31:45 PDT