Peter Jones writes: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Peter Jones writes: > > > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > > If every computation is implemented everywhere anyway, this is > > > > equivalent to the situation where every > > > > computation exists as a platonic object, or every computation exists > > > > implemented on some computer or > > > > brain in a material multiverse. > > > > > > But if implementing a particular computation depends on an observer, or > > > a dicitonary, > > > or somesuch, it is not the case that everything implements every > > > computation unless > > > it can be shown that evey dictionary somehow exists as well. > > > > The computation provides its own observer if it is conscious, by definition. > > But "providing its own observer", if computationalism is true, > must be a computational property, ie. a property possesed > only by particular programmes. However, if any system > can be interpreted as running every programme, everysystems > has the self-observation property, if interpretedt he right way. > > IOW, one you introduce interpretation-dependence, you can't get away > from it.
That's right: if there is at least one physical system, then every computation is implemented, although we can only interact with them at our level if they are implemented on a conventional brain or computer, which means we have the means to interpret them at hand. The non-conscious computations are "there" in the trivial sense that a block of marble contains every possible statue of a given size. The conscious computations, on the other hand, are there and self-aware even though we cannot interact with them, just as all the statues in a block of marble would be conscious if statues were conscious and being embedded in marble did not render them unconscious. > > If it isn't conscious then it's a matter > > of taste whether you say it is implemented, but trivially or uselessly, in > > the absence of an observer, or it isn't > > implemented at all in the absence of an observer. Conscious computations > > are the interesting case - if indeed > > computations can be conscious. > > > > > > > The dynamism part can be provided by a simple physical system such as > > > > the idle passage of time. > > > > If you allow for parallel processing you don't need much time either. > > > > This leads to a situation whereby > > > > every computation is implemented by universe with a single electron > > > > > > What is parallel about a single electron ? > > > > If a physical system passing through a series of states in a given time > > interval can implement more than one > > computation, > > Do you mean serially , or in terms of multiple dictionaries ? In that the one series of physical states can have multiple interpretations under multiple dictionaries. > > then it can be seen as implementing more than one computation > > simultaneously during the > > given interval. > > AFAICS that is only true in terms of dictionaries. Right: without the dictionary, it's not very interesting or relevant to *us*. If we were to actually map a random physical process onto an arbitrary computation of interest, that would be at least as much work as building and programming a conventional computer to carry out the computation. However, doing the mapping does not make a difference to the *system* (assuming we aren't going to use it to interact with it). If we say that under a certain interpretation - here it is, printed out on paper - the system is implementing a conscious computation, it would still be implementing that computation if we had never determined and printed out the interpretation. > But then you don't have a one electron universe.... > > (it is important to distinguish the idea that any physical system COULD > implement > any computation IF it were interpreted with the right dictionary > form the idea that it actually IS implementing every computaiton. > With hypothetical dictionaries, you have only hypothetical > computations). Indeed, until the interpretation is determined, the implementation is only a triviality - except if the computation is self-aware, in which case what we think of it is not going to make any difference unless we plan to interact with it. 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 firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---