Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
> > > I'm not sure how the multiverse comes into the discussion, but you have
> > > made the point several times that a computation depends on an observer
> > No, I haven't! I have tried ot follow through the consequences of
> > assuming it must.
> > It seems to me that some sort of absurdity or contradiction ensues.
> OK. This has been a long and complicated thread.
> > > for its meaning. I agree, but *if* computations can be conscious
> > > (remember,
> > > this is an assumption) then in that special case an external observer is
> > > not
> > > needed.
> > Why not ? (Well, I would be quite happy that a conscious
> > computation would have some inherent structural property --
> > I want to foind out why *you* would think it doesn't).
> I think it goes against standard computationalism if you say that a conscious
> computation has some inherent structural property.
I fail to see why. Computations obviously do have structural
Why shouldn't consciousness supervene on them ?
> Opponents of computationalism
> have used the absurdity of the conclusion that anything implements any
> computation as evidence that there is something special and non-computational
> about the brain.
Yes, but "anything implements any computation" isn't a legitimate
of computationalism or anything else. That being the case, there is no
need for special pleading for consciousness.
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