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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
