On 29 Nov 2008, at 18:49, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> This, I don't understand. And, btw, if that is true, then the
>> physical
>> supervenience thesis is already wrong. The
>> physical supervenience thesis asks that consciousness is associated
>> in
>> real time and space with the activity of some machine (with MEC).
>
> Then assuming MEC requires some definition of "activity" and
> consciousness may
> cease when there is no activity of the required kind.
We require a notion of physical activity related to a computation for
having MEC *and* the supervenience thesis.
With MEC alone, we abandon MAT, the computational supervenience thesis
will have to make any notion of physical causality a statistically
emerging pattern from (hopefully sharable) first person (plural)
points of view.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Sat Nov 29 2008 - 15:18:32 PST