Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
> > > > This does not necessarily mean that the consciousness is caused by or
> > > > supervenes on the pattern of dots, any more that the number 3 is caused
> > > > by or supervenes
> > > > on a collection of 3 objects. If anything, it could be the other way
> > > > around: the GoL pattern
> > > > supervenes on, or is isomorphic with, the consciousness which resides
> > > > in Platonia.
> > >
> > >
> > > ????
> > Well, this is the whole problem we have been discussing these past few
> > weeks. The computer
> > exhibits intelligent behaviour and we conclude that it is probably
> > conscious. The physical
> > states of the computer are clearly the cause of its behaviour, and the
> > means whereby we
> > can observe it or interact with it, but is it correct to say that the
> > physical states are the cause
> > of its *consciousness*?
> If physicalism is correct, only physical states exist,
> so yes.
> > At first glance, the answer is "yes". But what about a computer which
> > goes through exactly the same physical states as part of a recording, as
> > discussed in my other
> > posts?
> It won't be exactly the same state, since dispositions and
> counterfactuals have
> a physical basis.
A classical computer is perfectly deterministic - it wouldn't be much use as a
computer if were not. If
it is provided with the same inputs, it will go through the same sequence of
physical states. On run
no. 1 it could be provided with input from a human, or a true random number
generator, for example
one based on radioactive decay. On run no. 2 it could be provided with a
recording of the input from
run no. 1, so that we know exactly what the computer's responses will be, as
surely as we know what
the behaviour of a tape recording or a clockwork mechanism will be.
> >If you say this is not conscious, you have a problem, because identical
> >electrical activity
> > in the computer's circuitry would then on one occasion cause consciousness
> > and on another
> > occasion not.
> It all depends on what you mean by "activity". The total physical
> state will be different.
No, it will be exactly the same. The same keystrokes or voice commands are
entered the second time
around from a recording.
> > If you say it is conscious, then you have to allow that a recording or an
> > inputless
> > machine can be conscious, something many computationalists are loathe to do.
> That depends whether they are consciousness-computationalists
> or cognition-computationalists.
It's consciousness which is the more problematic. Many cognitive scientists
have traditionally eschewed
consciousness as unreal, unimportant or too difficult to study.
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
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