1Z wrote: > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > >>>That's not very interesting for non-conscious computations, because >>>they are only useful or meaningful if they can be observed or interact with >>>their >>>environment. However, a conscious computation is interesting all on its own. >>>It >>>might have a fuller life if it can interact with other minds, but its >>>meaning is >>>not contingent on other minds the way a non-conscious computation's is. >> >>Empirically, all of the meaning seems to be referred to things outside the >>computation. So if the conscious computation thinks of the word "chair" it >>doesn't >>provide any meaning unless there is a chair - outside the computation. > > > What about when a human thinks about a chair ? What about > when a human thinks about a unicorn?
He thinks about a white horse with a horn, both of which exist. What is the meaning of "Zeus"...it refers through descriptions that have meaningful elements. >What about a computer thinking > about a unicorn? That's what we're puzzling over. Is it meaningless if the computer isn't conscious...but refers to a horse with a horn if the computer is conscious? Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---