I don't think that's what the introduction implies. I'm going on a limb here and assume that I your conclusion stems from the author's claim of inability to separate meaning from mechanism, or even further, that computation is not a special thing worth having a theory about?
Consider the author's hints that computation is about meaning and mechanism. Further, consider author's analysis and criticism of claims of universal computation. The author allows a mechanism to be paired with a program, and seems to acknowledge that one can find a combination of a different mechanism paired with a different program that would be equivalent to the first pair. That alone seems to me to dismiss the concern that mind uploading would not be possible (despite that I think it's a wrong and a horrible idea personally :D) The author's point of view seems, to me, to resemble the "Thunderstorm Choreographers" point of view of Brian Foote ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6Y9aJhqO78&t=21m31s) It's too bad that the "Age of Significance" project seems to no longer be active. I'm curious what happened to it. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Loup Vaillant-David <[email protected]>wrote: > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 09:25:19PM +0200, John Nilsson wrote: > > This discussion reminds me of > > http://www.ageofsignificance.org/ > > > > It's a philosophical analysis of what computation means and how, or if, > it > > can be separated from the machine implementing it. The author argues that > > it cannot. > > If I got it correctly, I hope the author is mistaken: if he's right, > then that's one less path to both immortality and ascension. (I'm > talking about mind uploading.) > > Loup. > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
