On Monday, March 10, 2014 5:48:42 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > > > > On 7 March 2014 15:46, Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: > >> If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species >> with a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars >> have replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce >> in a different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like >> horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve >> into new styles over time. >> >> Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or >> Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars. They do not >> whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their drivers >> careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a car does >> not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither does it >> need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very >> complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all >> practical purposes than a horse. >> >> Maybe the doctor can replace all species with a functional equivalent? We >> could even do without all of the moving around and just keep the cars in >> the factory in which they are built and include a simulation screen on each >> windshield that interacts with Google Maps. With a powerful enough >> artificial intelligence, why not replace function altogether? >> >> I don't think you understand the essential idea of functionalism, which > is multiple realisability. >
Multiple realisability is the problem. A digital file can be rendered to our visual sense as a graphic design or to our audio sense as music. It can also be copied, translated, or functionally manipulated in every way without being rendered at all. > You try to think of analogies to show that it's not obvious, but we know > it's not obvious. However, it's true. > It's even less obvious than you think. What you are thinking is not obvious is only halfway there. > You don't address the arguments showing it to be true. It's like focussing > on how we would fall off the earth if it were round but failing to explain > the photos from space. > What argument specifically are you saying that I don't address? Craig > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
