Brent Meeker wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > Brent Meeker wrote:
> >>1Z wrote:
> >>>If two systems differ counterfactually, they are not physically
> >>I don't think I understand this either.
> > Either that, or counterfactuallity is asupernatural phenomenon.
> >>Computer programs contain if-then
> >>statements which branch the process depending on the data input to the
> >> But there is no real distinction between data an program.
> > There is a difference between data and process --i.e. running
> > programme.
> I don't disagree, but I don't see what that has to do with programs having
> if-thens. Given the program and the data, the process is only going down one
But that's not what makes it computation. What makes
it computation is behaving differently for different data.
> So when you talk about counterfactuals it must be because you are
> considering other possible data as input.
> > Standard computationalism says mentation (as an activity)
> > is computation (as a process). It is a rare computationalist
> > who think that a spool of tape gathering dust in a cupboardi
> > is mentating. (Not much of a Yes Doctor).
> >> So if you insist
> >>that computed intelligence or consciousness depends on counterfactuals in
> >>program that seems to me to be the same as insisting that the computation is
> >>implemented in some way that divides it from input data, i.e. it is in an
> > Well, it is divided -- by the programme/process distinction.
> That's the (program+data)/process distinction. But ISTM that without a
> program/data distinction, counterfactuals are a distinction without a
I am saying there is a programme/data distinction, which rests on
the programme/process distinction.
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at