Re: QTI & euthanasia (brouillon)

From: GŁnther Greindl <>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:06:16 +0100

Hi Bruno,

> I can agree for "all computational states" of some (universal) machine.
> If you don't precise what you mean by state it is a bit too much
> general. Imo.

I mean either: all computational states OR all physical states ->
depending on whether comp or phys is true. Where the difference would
then only be that with phys the states where not turing emulable.

> that "17 is not a prime number". Those are false statements, but
> assuming comp, your consciousness of the statement "17 is not a prime
> number" will supervene on the TRUE statement that some machine have
> access the state corresponding to your belief that 17 is not prime. The
> true arithmetical statement on which consciousness will have to
> supervene are just description of computation under the form : "the
> machine XXX has got the state YYY from the input RRR".

Ok thanks - this is clear now.

> Maudlin assume PHYS and thus concludes there is a problem with MECH.
> I assume MECH and thus conclude there is a problem with PHYS.
> But the reasoning are equivalent.

Yes, that is how I understood it.

> All right? It seems to me you have everything to understand the seven
> steps of the UDA. You are OK with 1...7. My point was that if you
> don't believe in arithmetical (as a particular case of philosophical)
> zombie, the the Movie Graph Argument is not needed. If you don't
> believe in what I would call physical zombie, and yet believe in
> primary physical things, then the MGA is needed (step 8). All right?

I understand Step 8 as showing that if one accepts COMP, one has to
associate conscious experience with abstract computations, not with
physical implementations - by appeal to a thought experiment, which
leaves me a bit queasy; but I tend to agree.

I still do not understand what an "arithmetical zombie" should be - do
you mean a computational state which would not be conscious?

Now if I don't believe in arithmetical zombies, why would I not need
step 8 to exclude the physical universe? I could dispute that
arithemetics by itself without physical implementation has no
consequence whatever, for instance.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Fri Nov 07 2008 - 12:08:53 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST