Brent Meeker wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Peter Jones writes: > > > > > >>>That's what I'm saying, but I certainly don't think everyone agrees with > >>>me on the list, and > >>>I'm not completely decided as to which of the three is more absurd: every > >>>physical system > >>>implements every conscious computation, no physical system implements any > >>>conscious > >>>computation (they are all implemented non-physically in Platonia), or the > >>>idea that a > >>>computation can be conscious in the first place. > >> > >> > >>You haven't made it clear why you don't accept that every physical > >>system > >>implements one computation, whether it is a > >>conscious computation or not. I don't see what > >>contradicts it. > > > > > > Every physical system does implement every computation, in a trivial sense, > > as every rock > > is a hammer and a doorstop and contains a bust of Albert Einstein inside > > it. Those three aspects > > of rocks are not of any consequence unless there is someone around to > > appreciate them. > > Similarly, if the vibration of atoms in a rock under some complex mapping > > are calculating pi > > that is not of any consequence unless someone goes to the trouble of > > determining that mapping, > > and even then it wouldn't be of any use as a general purpose computer > > unless you built another > > general purpose computer to dynamically interpret the vibrations (which > > does not mean the rock > > isn't doing the calculation without this extra computer). > > I think there are some constraints on what the rock must be doing in order > that it > can be said to be calculating pi instead of the interpreting computer. For > example > if the rock states were just 1,0,1,0,1,0... then there are several arguments > based on > for example information theory that would rule out that being a computation > of pi.

Stathis would no doubt say you just need a dictionary that says; Let the first 1 be 3 let the first 0 be 1 let the second 1 be 4 let the second 0 be 1 let the third 1 be 5 let the third 0 be 9 ... But there are good AIT reasons for saying that all the complexity is in the dictionary --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---