1Z wrote:
> 
> 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
> ...

I don't think he would because he acceded to my point about isomorphism - 
although 
what's "iso" between two programs executing the same algorithm is a little hard 
to 
pin down.

Brent Meekeer


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to