From: Nick Tarleton (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Mar 07 2008 - 13:23:27 MST
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Lee Corbin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Nick writes
> Or do you mean to say that *somewhere* the dust actually "computes"
> for a tiny microsecond, and is isomorphic to the changes in my brain
> over that microsecond, and then a second place, the computation is
> taken from state 2 to state 3? If so, these breaks that occur happen
> almost continually, and prevent ongoing information flow. But perhaps
> I'm not understanding you.
That is what I mean.
> > In any case, I don't see that you could notice the lack of information
> > flow. Since (if) the mental supervenes on the physical, then for there
> > to be a noticeable difference the computation would have to come out
> > differently depending on the causal history of the initial state, an
> > arrant absurdity.
> Surely you don't believe that one patch of dust relays information to
> another patch of dust many, many light years away? But we may
> simply be miscommunicating. Can you clarify, please?
I don't see how it could feel different to be implemented without vs.
with information flow. How things feel supervenes on the computations,
and the computations are the same; the causal chain leading up to them
is just different.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 04:01:27 MDT