On 18 August 2014 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think that a sustained stream of consciousness will probably be part of > a computation that instantiates physics - instantiates a whole universe > complete with physics. > It would need to instantiate a stable enough universe that something capable of computation can evolve there, I imagine. Certainly if one assumes that the comp reversal doesn't happen. > However, the point that I wanted to make was that if computation can > instantiate consciousness then there is nothing to stop a recording, a > Boltzmann Brain, a rock and so on from doing so; for these possibilities > have been used as arguments against computationalism or to arbitrarily > restrict computationalism. > > As I think Brent has pointed out previously, any process can be defined as a computation - this is another form of the Chinese room, I think, the idea that since just about anything can be treated as performing a computation if looked at in the rignt way, there is no way to get any meaning into a computation - it's pure syntax without semantics. I'm not sure how this restricts comp, however, because according to comp there are an infinite number of abstract computations backing up each moment of consciousness, and if you add to these a few computations performed by rocks or Boltzmann brains (or ordinary brains) you aren't actually adding anything to the existing infinity. -- 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.
