Bruno, as another chap with learned English "in vertical stance" I "partially" agree with your 'plural' as would all English mother-tongued people, but I also consider the gramatically probably inproper "points of views", since WE allow different 'views' in our considerations. Stathis may choose his preference<G>. "Points of view" assumes THE one view we allow. "MATTER OF FACTlLY" (plural: 'matters-of factly'? - if it really HAS a plural. Is there an English "singulare tantum"? ) I still speculate what "point of views" may refer to, however I would volunteer a "point-of-views" in the conventional sense. Alas, no 'utmost' authority OVER the hundreds of live English versions. John
On 1/25/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Bruno marchal writes: > > > Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > > > > Simplistically, I conceive of computations as mysterious abstract > > > objects, like > > > all other mathematical objects. Physical computers are devices which > > > reflect > > > these mathematical objects in order to achieve some practical purpose > > > in the > > > substrate of their implementation. A computer, an abacus, a set of > > > fingers, > > > pencil and paper can be used to compute 2+3=5, but these processes do > > > not > > > create the computation, they just make it accessible to the user. The > > > fact that > > > 2 birds land on a tree in South America and 3 elephants drink at a > > > watering hole > > > in Africa, or 2 atoms move to the left in a rock and 3 atoms move to > > > the right > > > is essentially the same process as the abacus, but it is useless, > > > trivial, lost in > > > randomness, escapes the notice of theories of computation - and > > > rightly so. > > > However, what about the special case where a more complex version of > > > 2+3=5 > > > on the abacus is conscious? Then I see no reason why the birds and the > > > elephants > > > or the atoms in a rock should not also implement the same > > > consciousness, even > > > though there is no possibility of interaction with the outside world > > > due to the > > > computation being lost in noise. What this really does is destroy the > > > whole notion > > > of physical supervenience: if you shot the elephants or smashed the > > > rock, the > > > computation could as easily spring from the new noise situation. Thus, > > > it would > > > appear that consciousness comes from computation as pure mathematical > > > object, > > > and is no more created by the physical process that addition is > > > created by the > > > physical process. Either that, or it isn't computational at all. > > > > > > OK, so we do agree. > > > > > > > > > > > >> The real question is not "does a rock implement computations", the > > >> question is "does a rock implement computations in such a way as to > > >> changed the relative measure of my (future) comp states in a relevant > > >> way?" And for answering such question we need to know what a rock > > >> really is, and both physics and comp are not near at all to answer > > >> this. Comp has less trouble here because it does not have to reify > any > > >> primary reality associated to the rock, which already emerge locally > > >> from many non material computations. > > > > > > No, as I implied above, a rock makes no difference whatsoever to the > > > measure of > > > computation it might be seen as implementing. > > > > OK. > > So, now, we have to extract "physics" from computations if we assume > > (even just standard comp). Do you agree with the UDA informal > > conclusion? That is, that physics will be given by relative (cf RSSA) > > measure on computational histories from some internal point of views? > > Such a measure has to be observer invariant (I am not talking about the > > content of what is measured, but about the general math of that > > measure). In any case we must dig on computations and provability, if > > only to get reasonable mathematical definition of those different > > "person point of view". > > Yes, I agree, *given* comp. > > > PS Could someone give me the plural of "point of view" ? > > "points of view" > > Stathis Papaioannou > _________________________________________________________________ > Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. > > http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---