Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 31 Jan 2009, at 12:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> Ok then for the particular run I describe, the two programs (the
>> original and the one modified by stub subpart) have the same states...
>> So for this particular run, we should still accept that the stub
>> modified program is conscious while the run is performed (either
>> physicaly or just by the mere existence of it's trace in platonia).
>
>
> It is more complex than that. I have to think more to make a genuine
> comment.
>
>
>
>> Is consciousness supervening on the state/trace of the computation
>> (which makes that there is an infinity of computations "outputing"
>> this trace, and in our case original program and stub program does the
>> same) or on the trace+the relation between states (which would
>> differentiate the two programs, hence by what supervening mean the
>> consciousness generated by them) ?
>
> On the trace+relations, or better on the relations only. But the
> relations are infinitely many too.
I don't understand the last remark. We're assuming the computation is performed
by some finite-state machine - right? In which case successive states are
related by a "successor function" which is a finite set of triples.
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Mon Feb 02 2009 - 12:20:36 PST