On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]>
wrote:
It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We
know that brains can be conscious, and we assume that computations
can also be conscious. But that doesn't mean that only computations
can be conscious, nor does it mean that brains are computations.
These two latter statements might be true, but they are not
necessarily true, even given computationalism.
I may not have phrased it very well, but comp1 is the assumption
that consciousness is based on computation, and can't be created by
anything else (at least that's comp1 in a simple form - actually, I
believe it's the assumption that at some level physics is Turing
emulable). On that basis, a brain must do computation (at some
level), since it's conscious, and an AI could be conscious given the
correct programme.
There are two good justifications for computationalism that I can
think of. One is the evolutionary one: that consciousness produces
no effects of its own, so must be a side-effect of intelligent
behaviour. The other is Chalmers' fading qualia argument. Neither of
these justifications make a case for computation *exclusively* being
responsible for consciousness. That is an added assumption, and at
least in the first instance seems unnecessary.
In science we use the axiom available, and here, comp loses its
meaning if the survival is not supposed to be due to the computation.
If not, even step one does no more follow. I might surivive with an
artificial brain thanks to the Virgin Mary, but she might dislike the
use of classical transportation, and so would not survive it. I sum
this by the "qua computatio" condition. You can see it as linking the
survival to only the computation. My definition of comp is already
very weak, compared to most of thoise use in the literature. Without
"qua computatio", comp becomes so weak that it becomes trivial.
Bruno
(And what's wrong with "sneaked" ?)
I was trying to be faintly amusing, but I see that "snuck" may have
sneaked into the language:
http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g08.html
--
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.
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
