Brent Meeker wrote:
> > Stathis Papaioannou > > Yes, that's roughly my idea. Of course you can't insist that a > computation interact continuously to count as computation, only that it > does occasionally or potentially. Most of the counterfactuals that make up a computation are internal. There has to be some sense in which it could have gone down the other branch of an if-then statement (or that is must have gone fown the same one) > In your example I would say that you > can only know that there is computation, as distinct from noise, going > on if the computer, via the emulation code, can still interact with its > environment (i.e. you). I don't believe the simplicity or complexity of > the internal operations is relevant. For example, if you could see the > movements of electrons in my computer, you couldn't tell whether it was > displaying this email or just doing something random - but if you look > at the dispaly screen you can. On the other hand, to the alien from > alpha centauri, the screen might also look random. The underlying physics of the thing will tell youwhether it is capable of supporting countefactuals without running a programme at all. There is something objectively machine-like about machines -- complex , but predictable behaviour. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
