Re: QTI & euthanasia (brouillon)

From: GŁnther Greindl <guenther.greindl.domain.name.hidden>
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.

Cheers,
GŁnther







--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
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