Kory Heath wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2008, at 5:12 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> But if any computation can be mapped onto any physical state, then
>> every computation can be mapped onto one physical state; and why not
>> the null state?
I'm not sure that works.  In the original idea the mapping was to be 
one-to-one (which is possible since a stone or other physical object has 
many microscopic states).  If the mapping is something like:


then the inverse mapping,


has to implicitly provide it's own order.  So for the physical-state0 to 
implement the computation there would have to be another index variable, 
like time, to order the inverse mapping.  Then it would really be

physical-state0@ t=1---1map--->computation-state1
physical-state0@ t=2---2map--->computation-state2
physical-state0@ t=3---3map--->computation-state3



> I guess I don't really have a clear picture of why the fact that any  
> computation can be mapped onto a physical state should lead to the  
> belief that (say) those mappings somehow support consciousnesses. I'm  
> not very comfortable with the idea that a stone implements all  
> computations. It may in fact be the case that those views are  
> functionally equivalent to my suggestion that mathematical facts of  
> the matter play the role that physical existence is supposed to play  
> for the materialist, but I'm sticking with the latter formulation,  
> because that's the one I actually understand.
> -- Kory
> >

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