Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Peter Jones writes: > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Peter Jones writes: > > > > > > > > Is it possible that we are currently actors in a single, > > > > > deterministic, non-branching > > > > > computer program, with the illusion of free will and if-then > > > > > contingency in general > > > > > being due to the fact that we don't know the details of how the > > > > > program will play > > > > > out? > > > > > > > > Lots of things are possible. The question is what to believe. > > > > > > True, but I thought you were saying that such a thing was incompatible > > > with consciousness, > > > and I see no reason to believe that. > > > > There are a lot of prolems with what you are saying. > > > > I don't think it is possible to get dynamism out of stasis, > > and I don't think it is possible to get qualia out of mathematical > > structues > > But what about a physical computer which creates an entire virtual > environment, complete > with sentient beings? Once started up it would be completely deterministic, > just as a recording > would be. It could have if-then statements but these would not make any > difference, given initial > conditions.
> (A recording also has if-then statements, in that if the input were > different, the > output would also be different.) > This could as easily be a real model of a classical universe, with > no interference from outside once initial conditions + laws of physics had > been set. The if-then > statements are implicit in the laws of physics: if I throw a rock, it will > follow a parabolic trajectory > and shatter the window. Yes, that is my point. Computationalsim requires processes that implement algorithms, algorithms require counterfactuals, counterfactuals are underpinned by physical causality. But all you can have in Plato's heaven is a recording that doesn't have counterfactual behaviour, or a programme (as opposed to a process) that isn't implemented. > As an inhabitant of the univerese I think I have free will in deciding > whether > or not to throw the rock, but in fact this is no more indeterminate than the > workings of a clockwork > mechanism. Assuming the universe is detrerministic. (Actually, classical physics isn't computable...) > My understanding is that standard computationalism allows for consciousness > to occur > in such a universe, even if it isn't the universe we actually live in. And such a universe could be emulated as a running, deterministic process. But that won't get you into Plato's heaven, because it is a *running* process -- it is still dynamic. A recording of the process could exist in Plato's heaven, but it wouldn't have all the counterfactuals, so the computationalist is not required to believe that it contains any real sentience -- the simulated beings in it would have no more consciousness of their own than the characters in a movie! Likewise, the computationalist is not required to believe that an unexecuted programme is sentient (even though it has, theoretically, the counterfactuals). No-one would believe that a brain-scan, however detailed, is conscious, so not computationalist, however ardent, is required to believe that a progamme gathering udston a shelf is sentient, however good a piece of AI code it is. >If not, then you have to abandon > computationalism and embrace something like Penrose's theory in which > essentially non-computable > quantum effects are responsible for consciousness; or maybe we've just all > been issued with a soul > by God. Standard computationalism refers to real, physical processes running on material computers. You have to show that the causality and dynamism are inessential (that there is no relevant difference between process and programme) before you can have consciousness implemented Platonically. (No *special* kind of physics is required). > Stathis Papaioannou > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. > http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
