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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
