Le 11-janv.-09, à 17:55, Brent Meeker a écrit :

> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> 2009/1/11 Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>:
>>> I'm suggesting that "running a state" is incoherent.
>> A machine running a program goes through a sequence of states.
>> Consider 20 consecutive states, s1 to s20, which give rise to several
>> moments of consciousness. Would you say that running the sequence s1
>> to s20 on a single machine m1 will give a different conscious
>> experience to running s1 to s10 on m1 and separately s11 to s20 on m2?
> I'm suggesting that there has to be something that makes the states a
> sequence instead of just a set or an aggregate.

I agree.
What you need is a Universal system/machine/language/whatever. To say 
that something is a state in a computation, or that something is a 
computation, you need a universal machine capable of producing that 
Now, assuming the "yes doctor" entails that the universal system does 
not need to be physical, and that the very term "physical" will have to 
be explained in term of purely combinatorial or arithmetical universal 
system. The explanatory gain is fabulous, then.


> Brent
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to