Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
> > > 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.
> > But here it is not the computation itself that is
> > recorded, just the input that drives it.
> > > 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.
> > That doesn't prove that a recording is the same as a
> > a computation. What you are talking about is
> > a computation driven by a recording.
> That's right, but with a fixed input the computer follows a perfectly
> deterministic course, like a clockwork
> mechanism, however many times we repeat the run. Moreover, if we consider the
> recording of the input
> as hardwired into the computer, it does not interact with its environment. So
> we have the possibility that
> a perfectly deterministic physical system that does not interact with its
> environment may be conscious.
That depends on what you mean by "environment". In any case, the
counterfactuals are still there.
> And since the computer may be built and programmed in an arbitrarily complex
> way, because any physical
> system can be mapped onto any computation with the appropriate mapping rules,
That is not a fact.
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