Peter Jones writes:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > Brent meeker writes:
> > > >>>I think it goes against standard computationalism if you say that a
> > > >>>conscious
> > > >>>computation has some inherent structural property. Opponents of
> > > >>>computationalism
> > > >>>have used the absurdity of the conclusion that anything implements any
> > > >>>conscious
> > > >>>computation as evidence that there is something special and
> > > >>>non-computational
> > > >>>about the brain. Maybe they're right.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Stathis Papaioannou
> > > >>
> > > >>Why not reject the idea that any computation implements every possible
> > > >>computation
> > > >>(which seems absurd to me)? Then allow that only computations with
> > > >>some special
> > > >>structure are conscious.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's possible, but once you start in that direction you can say that
> > > > only computations
> > > > implemented on this machine rather than that machine can be conscious.
> > > > You need the
> > > > hardware in order to specify structure, unless you can think of a
> > > > God-given programming
> > > > language against which candidate computations can be measured.
> > >
> > > I regard that as a feature - not a bug. :-)
> > >
> > > Disembodied computation doesn't quite seem absurd - but our empirical
> > > sample argues
> > > for embodiment.
> > >
> > > Brent Meeker
> > I don't have a clear idea in my mind of disembodied computation except in
> > rather simple cases,
> > like numbers and arithmetic. The number 5 exists as a Platonic ideal, and
> > it can also be implemented
> > so we can interact with it, as when there is a collection of 5 oranges, or
> > 3 oranges and 2 apples,
> > or 3 pairs of oranges and 2 triplets of apples, and so on, in infinite
> > variety. The difficulty is that if we
> > say that "3+2=5" as exemplified by 3 oranges and 2 apples is conscious,
> > then should we also say
> > that the pairs+triplets of fruit are also conscious?
> No, they are only subroutines.
But a computation is just a lot of subroutines; or equivalently, a computation
is just a subroutine in a larger
computation or subroutine.
> > If so, where do we draw the line?
> At specific structures
By "structures" do you mean hardware or software? I don't think it's possible
to pin down software structures
without reference to a particular machine and operating system. There is no
natural or God-given language.
> > That is what I mean
> > when I say that any computation can map onto any physical system. The
> > physical structure and activity
> > of computer A implementing program a may be completely different to that of
> > computer B implementing
> > program b, but program b may be an emulation of program a, which should
> > make the two machines
> > functionally equivalent and, under computationalism, equivalently conscious.
> So ? If the functional equivalence doesn't depend on a
> where is the problem ?
Who interprets the meaning of "baroque"?
> > Maybe this is wrong, eg.
> > there is something special about the insulation in the wires of machine A,
> > so that only A can be conscious.
> > But that is no longer computationalism.
> No. But what would force that conclusion on us ? Why can't
> attach to features more gneral than hardware, but less general than one
> of your re-interpretations ?
Because there is no natural or God-given computer architecture or language. You
could say that consciousness
does follow a natural architecture: that of the brain. But that could mean you
would have a zombie if you tried
to copy brain function with a digital computer, or with a digital computer not
running Mr. Gates' operating system.
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at