What is wrong? In my opinion, it is that you are thinking that
anything at all exists "in addition to" or "supervening on" the
gates, or the movie, or the functions.
I think you have a picture in your mind like this: let's say there
are two side-by-side computers, and let's say the one on the left is
running a fully conscious simulation of your experiences at age 10,
and the one on the right is calculating planetary orbits or digits of
pi; and in your picture the one on the left, in addition to the
computations, also has an faint invisible blue glow associated with
it, that is the "consciousness". I think that there is no blue glow -
there is only the computations.
That goes for a physical implementation of a computer, or a stack of
Game of Life counters, or whatever else. Consciousness is not
"something else". Well, I'm getting ahead of myself - what I mean to
say is that there are many philosophical approaches to consciousness,
championed by philosophers such as Dan Dennett, under which nothing
is wrong.
And if you do believe in "something else" or supervenience, why
should it be a priori any more absurd to say consciousness supervenes
on a movie than on a bunch of atoms?
Regards
Pete
On Jan 28, 2009, at 9:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was thinking about the movie graph and its conclusions. It
> concludes that it is absurd for the connsciousness to supervene on
> the movie hence physical supervenience is false.
>
> But if I simulate the graph with a program, and having for exemple
> each gates represented by a function like "out = f(in)" each
> functions of the simulated graph is in a library which is loaded
> dynamically. I can record a run and then on new run I can
> selectively replace each libraries/functions by another one with
> the same function contract but which instead of computing the out
> value, it takes the value from the record. I can do it like in the
> movie graph for each gates/functions.
>
> Then it seems that means in the end the consciousness has to
> supervene on the record... then it is the same conclusion than for
> physical supervenience. What is wrong ?
>
> Regards,
> Quentin
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Wed Jan 28 2009 - 15:16:50 PST