> 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
>>>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?
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