David Nyman wrote:
> On 25/06/07, *Russell Standish* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> RS:  The conscious entity that the computer implements would know about
> it. It is not imaginary to itself. And by choosing to interpret the
> computer's program in that way, rather than say a tortured backgammon
> playing program, we open a channel of communication with the
> consciousness it implements.
> DN:  .......you mean that if functionalism is true, then though any of 
> the myriad interpretations of the physics might possibly evoke an 
> observer world (although presumably most would be incoherent), only 
> interpretations we are able to 'interact with', precisely because of the 
> consistency of their externalised behaviour with us and our environment, 
> are relevant (causally or otherwise) *to us*.  And if this can be shown 
> to converge on a *unique* such interpretation for a given physical 
> system, in effect this would then satisfy my criterion of supervening on 
> *some* distinguishable or unique set of physical relations, even if we 
> couldn't say what it was. So this, then, would be the 'other mind' - and 
> from this perspective, all the other interpretations are 'imaginary' 
> *for us*.

If I understand you, I would agree with the clarification that this convergence 
has been performed by evolution; so that for us it is in the most part 
hardwired at birth.  And this hardwired interpretation of the world is 
something that co-evolved with sensory and manipulative organs.

Brent Meeker

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 

Reply via email to