On 9/5/06, 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Brent Meeker wrote:
> > 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.
> > >
> > > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> > Unless you can say what it is about a computation that makes it a unique 
> > computation
> > to us and what it is about a computation that makes is conscious, then 
> > nothing has
> > been gained.  Clearly it is not true that we can interact only with 
> > computations in
> > brains and computers.  We can interact with pool balls and molecules and 
> > weather and
> > lots of other things.
>
> But we can't interact with more than one of the computations
> a pool ball is supposedly performing -- the rest are just hypothetical
> possibilities.

I can agree for non-conscious computation... but if consciousness is
computation, the fact that one computation is self-aware is not
dependant on any other observer to decipher it... If with the right
manual I would discover that the computation performed is conscious,
it is a fact that it has been all along even when I didn't know it
was.

Quentin

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