Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 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.

All the computations are merely potential, in the absence of
interpreters and dictionaries,
whether conscious or not.

> The conscious computations, on the other hand, are there and
> self-aware

Not really. They are just possibilities.

>  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.

But that gets to the heart of the paradox. You are suggesting that
conscious
computations are still conscious even thought hey don't exst and
are mere possiiblities! That is surely a /reductio/ of one of your
premisses

> > > 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.

The problem remains that the system's own self awareness,
or lack thereof, is not observer-relative. something has to give.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to