Le 17-juil.-06, à 14:14, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> I understand up to the point in step 7 where you explain the workings
> of the UD. You've tried explaining it again a couple of weeks ago, and
> I think it is clearer every time I look at it, but I still have some
> difficulties. I will reply to Quentin's post (which is admirably
> concise) later.
Quite fair.
> I think I have more basic difficulties also, like the Maudlin
> argument re the handling of counterfactuals for consciousness to
> occur:
It is a bit harder, no doubt. And, according to some personal basic
everything philosophy, the Maudlin argument is important of not ....
> is this requirement just to avoid saying that everything implements
> every computation?
Jacques Mallah makes that point some years ago (in this list), and I
think Hal Finney has developed that point. I think their argument are
valid. But then I don't think the Putnam-Mallah-Chalmers is really a
problem once you get the idea that the physical world emerge from the
mathematical world of computations. Personally I have never seen a
convincing argument that everything implements every computations, just
perhaps some tiny part of some computations.
I will postpone saying more on the movie-graph/Olympia type of argument
(if only to avoid to much simultaneous threads and to modulate the
difficulties).
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Jul 17 2006 - 10:25:41 PDT