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 
>>>environment. However, a conscious computation is interesting all on its own. 
>>>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 
>>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 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to