Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
> [Stathis Papaioannou]
> > > > 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. This gives rise to the issues of
> > > > quantum immortality and the white rabbit
> > > > problem, as discussed at great length in the past on this list.
> > > >
> > > > One way to discredit all this foolishness is to abandon
> > > > computationalism...
> [Brent Meeker]
> > > I don't see how assuming consciousness is non-computational solves any of
> > > these
> > > conundrums about every object implementing every possible computation.
> > It would mean that every object implementing every possible computation
> > doesn't
> > imply that every object is conscious. Of course, one can also deny
> > that conclusion be regading computation as structural rather than
> > semantic.
> You don't have to go as far as saying that *computation* is structural rather
> than semantic. You only need to say
> that *consciousness* is structural, and hence non-computational. That's what
> some cognitive scientists have done,
> eg. Penrose, Searle, Maudlin. Personally, I don't see why there is such a
> disdain for the idea that every computation
> is implemented, including every conscious computation. The idea is still
> consistent with all the empirical facts, since
> we can only interact with a special subset of computations, implemented on
> conventional computers and brains.
Occam's razor, It is an unncessary complication.
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