> Brent Meeker 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
>>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?
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