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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
