1Z wrote: > Brent Meeker wrote: > >>1Z wrote: >> >>>Brent Meeker wrote: > > >>>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. >> >>But so far as we know all machines, all physical objects, are described >>by quantum mechanics and therefore are subject to random variations, >>i.e. they could have done otherwise. > > > That applies to your PC. How often does it randomly crash ? > > >>So I don't see how that helps in >>distinguishing computation from noise. > > > You can't tell the difference between doing something > random once every day and doins something > random billions of times a seconc ? > > >> Are you thinking of abstract >>computation - which of course can be deterministic if you rule out >>randomness in the abstraction? > > > we construct machines to rule out randomness within > certain limits. >
And evolution constructs brains to be essentially deterministic for the same reason. So is it your theory that any deterministic sequence of states constitutes computation and the reason a rock doesn't instantiate computation is that, at the microscopic level its state changes are dominated by quantum randomness? This thread started with a discussion of what computation could be counted as intelligent - or Stathis prefers "conscious". Does your distinction entail that intelligence (or consciousness) is deterministic? 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@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
