Brent Meeker wrote:
> 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? My theory is that to implement an algorithm something needs to have the counteractuals that are part of the algorithm. A machine needs to have distinct states (unlike a rock) and to have them counterfactually/causally linked (unlike a cloud of gas), > 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? I never said intelligence was computational in the first place ! > 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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
