On 7/8/2011 5:46 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That's what I thought he said. But I see no reason to suppose a UD is
> running, much less running without physics. We don't know of any
> computation that occurs immaterially.
All computation occurs materially and immaterially. An abacus doesn't
count itself. You ultimately have to have a conscious interpreter to
signify any particular text as quantitatively meaningful. Unplug all
monitors from all computers and what do you have left? Expensive
paperweights.
But the question is what makes a conscious interpreter conscious.
Would replacing part of your brain by artificial circuits that are
computationally equivalent preserve your consciousness? Your example of
computers without monitors makes a good point, but one I think different
from your intention. Computation must have some meaning, at least
implicitly. Meaning is conferred by interaction with the world.
Computers with monitors interact rather narrowly via humans. But
consider a computer that runs the utilities in a hospital or flies an
airliner. They don't need humans to look at a screen to give meaning to
their computation.
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-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
