Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
> > 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.
> >
> > The rock-hammer and the bust of Einstein are mere possibilities. You
> > don't
> > have an argument to the effect that every physical sytem is
> > implements every computation. Every physical systesm
> > could implelement any computation under suitable re-interpretation,
> > but that is a mere possibility unless someone does the re-interpreting,
> > --
> > in which case it is in fact the system+interpreter combination that is
> > doing
> > the  re-intrepreting.
> OK, but then you have the situation whereby a very complex, and to our mind 
> disorganised, conscious
> computer might be designed and built by aliens, then discovered by us after 
> the aliens have become
> extinct and their design blueprints, programming manuals and so on have all 
> been lost. We plug in the
> computer (all we can figure out about it is the voltage and current it needs 
> to run) and it starts whirring
> and flashing.  Although we have no idea what it's up to when it does this, 
> had we been the aliens, we
> would have been able to determine from observation that it was doing 
> philosophy or proving mathematical
> theorems. The point is, would we now say that it is *not* doing philosophy or 
> proving mathematical theorems
> because there are no aliens to observe it and interpret it?

Yes, and we would be correct, because the interpretation by th ealiens
is a part of the process.
The "computer" we recover is only one component, a subroutine.

If you only recover part of an artifiact, it is only natural that you
necessarily figure out the funtion of the whole.

> You might say, the interpretation has still occurred in the initial design, 
> even though the designers are no
> more. But what if exactly the same physical computer had come about by 
> incredible accident, as a result of
> a storm bringing together the appropriate metal, semiconductors, insulators 
> etc.: if the purposely built computer
> were conscious, wouldn't its accidental twin also be conscious?

Interpretation is an activity. If the total systems of
computer+intepretation is
consicous, that *would* be true of an accidental system, if the
interpretational subssytem were accidentally formed as wll, Otherwise,

> Finally, reverse the last step: a "computer" is as a matter of fact thrown 
> together randomly from various
> components, but it is like no computer ever designed, and just seems to whir 
> and flash randomly. Given that there
> are no universal laws of computer design that everyone has to follow, isn't 
> it possible that some bizarre alien
> engineer *could* have put this strange machine together, so that its 
> seemingly random activity to that alien
> engineer would have been purposely designed to implement conscious 
> computation?

"To the alien engineer" means "interpreted by the alien
engineer". Interpretation is an activity, so it means additional
computaiton. All your
examples are of subsytems that *could* be conscious
if they were plugged into a specific larger system.

 And if so, is it any more
> reasonable to deny that this computer is conscious because its designer has 
> not yet been born than it is to deny
> that the first computer was conscious because its designer has died, or 
> because it was made accidentally rather
> than purposely built in a factory?

Interpretation is an activity. Possible designers and dictionaries
don't lead to actual

> Stathis Papaioannou
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to