2009/1/28 Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
>
>
> Hi Quentin,
>
> > 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.
>
>
> OK. It is a reductio ad absurdo. It assumes that consciousness
> supervenes on the physical activity of a brain (Phys. Sup.), it shows
> that it leads to the fact that consciousness suoervenes on a movie
> "qua computatio", and this is considered as an absurdity, and so it
> concludes that Phys. Sup 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...
>
> Why? Consciousness supervenes on the computation(s), not on his
> physical implementation, be it with record or with the original modules.
>
>
> > then it is the same conclusion than for physical supervenience. What
> > is wrong ?
>
> The physical supervenience. Consciousness does not supervene on any
> implementation "in particular" of a computation. It supervenes on all
> (immaterial) computations going through the (relevant) states. This is
> in Platonia.
>
> Tell me if I miss something, but it seems to me there is no problem
> here. It is just, again, a problem if you believe in some physical
> supervenience.
>
> Best,
>
> Bruno
>
The problem I see is that the movie graph is used to show that phys-sup is
wrong (having as condition that I know consciousness is turing-emulable, as
we have a "conscious" graph which is the physical implementation), the
argument shows that consciousness does not supervene on this physical
implementation because we should be forced to accept it also supervene upon
broken graph + movie. But what I think with my exemple is that it does not
supervene on the particular simulation of the functionnal graph nor does it
supervene on the non-functionnal lookup record sumulation of the graph.
I understand the thing is that it supervene on all computations not a
particular computation... but I don't see how then movie graph rules out
phys sup and not any kind of supervenience.
Regards,
Quentin
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Quentin
> >
> > --
> > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
> >
> > >
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 - 15:25:13 PST