Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>What you seem to be suggesting is that not all computations are equivalent:
>some give rise to mind, >while others, apparently similar, do not. Isn't
>this similar to the reasoning of people who say that a >computer could
>never be conscious because even if it exactly emulated a human brain, it is
>a law of >nature that only brains can be conscious?
No, not at all--where did you get the idea I was saying "apparently similar"
computations would not give rise to minds? The psychophysical laws are
supposed to insure that a computations which appears completely *dissimilar*
to a human mind, like a simulation of the movement of atoms in a rock, does
not in fact qualify as an implementation of (or contribute to the measure
of) my mind and every other possible mind, as would be concluded by
Maudlin's argument or Bruno's movie-graph argument, as I understand them.
See Chalmers' paper "Does a Rock Implement Every Finite-State Automaton?" at
http://consc.net/papers/rock.html for more on this "implementation problem".
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at