On 7/10/2014 4:08 AM, David Nyman wrote:
In short, under physicalism, a 'computation' *just is* a particular sequence of physical states. Indeed what else could it be? The states, so to speak, come first and hence the notion that those states 'implement a computation' is always an a posteriori attribution that neither need, nor can, bring anything further to the party.
I agree with all you wrote. But as Bruno says it's a reductio. Given that it's absurd, the question is what makes it absurd. I think it's the assumption that the sequence of physical states constitutes a computation *independent* of any reference to a world. When you talk about your PC and accidental compensation for a physical fault, the concept of 'compensation' already assumes a correct operation - but what makes an operation correct?...it's relation to you and the rest of the world. A computation, a sequence of states simpliciter, could be a computation of anything or of nothing. So the intuition that the computation still exists without the physical instantiation is contradicted by the intuition that a computation must be about something. With conflicting absurdities I'm left unconvinced.
Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
