On 20 Nov 2008, at 21:27, Jason Resch wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
>>  The state machine that would represent her in the case of  
>> injection of random noise is a different state machine that would  
>> represent her normally functioning brain.
> Absolutely so.
> Bruno,
> What about the state machine that included the injection of "lucky"  
> noise from an outside source vs. one in which all information was  
> derived internally from the operation of the state machine itself?

At which times? How? Did MGA 2 clarify this?

> Would those two differently defined machines not differ and compute  
> something different?  Even though the computations are identical the  
> information that is being computed comes from different sources and  
> so carries with it a different "connotation".

But the supervenience principle and the non-prescience of the neurons  
makes it impossible to the machine to "feel" such connotations.

> Though the bits injected are identical, they inherently imply a  
> different meaning because the state machine in the case of injection  
> has a different structure than that of her normally operating  
> brain.  I believe the brain can be abstracted as a computer/ 
> information processing system, but it is not simply the computations  
> and the inputs into the logic gates at each step that are important,  
> but also the source of the input bits, otherwise the computation  
> isn't the same.

If the source differs below the substitution level, the machine cannot  
be aware of it. If she was, it would mean we have been wrong with the  
choice of the substitution level. OK? We can come back on this.


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