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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to