Kelly wrote:
What is the advantage of assigning consciousness to computational
processes (e.g. UDA), as opposed to just assigning it to the
information that is produced by computational processes?
For example, to take Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness paper,
if you just say that the
I think in regards to conscious, you can't have one without the other.
Both information and computation are needed, as the computation
imparts meaning to the information, and the information accumulates
meaning making each computation and its result more meaningful.
If I sent you an arbitrary
2009/4/20 Kelly harmon...@gmail.com:
What is the advantage of assigning consciousness to computational
processes (e.g. UDA), as opposed to just assigning it to the
information that is produced by computational processes?
For example, to take Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness paper,
Jason Resch wrote:
I think in regards to conscious, you can't have one without the other.
Both information and computation are needed, as the computation
imparts meaning to the information, and the information accumulates
meaning making each computation and its result more meaningful.
If I
On 20 Apr 2009, at 14:50, Brent Meeker wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
I think in regards to conscious, you can't have one without the
other.
Both information and computation are needed, as the computation
imparts meaning to the information, and the information accumulates
meaning making
On 20 Apr 2009, at 14:14, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/4/20 Kelly harmon...@gmail.com:
What is the advantage of assigning consciousness to computational
processes (e.g. UDA), as opposed to just assigning it to the
information that is produced by computational processes?
For example,
Brent Meeker wrote:
I think meaning ultimately must be grounded in action. That's why
it's hard to see where the meaning lies in a computation, something that
is just the manipulation of strings. People tend to say the meaning is
in the interpretation, noting that the same string of 1s
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
I think meaning ultimately must be grounded in action. That's why
it's hard to see where the meaning lies in a computation, something
that
is just the manipulation of strings. People tend to say the meaning is
in the interpretation, noting that
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Apr 2009, at 14:50, Brent Meeker wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
I think in regards to conscious, you can't have one without the
other.
Both information and computation are needed, as the computation
imparts meaning to the information, and the information
On Apr 20, 2:04 am, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
The main difficulty I see is that it fails to explain the sequential
aspect of consciousness. If consciousness is identified with
information then it is atemporal.
Time is just the dimension of experience. But experience is
On Apr 20, 8:14 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
The drawback is that any physical system (which could be mapped onto
any information or any computation) would be conscious. This is only a
drawback if you believe, I guess as a matter of faith, that it is
false.
Right, the
On Apr 20, 3:27 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If I sent you an arbitrary binary string, it would have no meaning
unless you either knew in advance how to interpret it or how it was
produced. Either interpretation or understanding of how it was
produced can be described with
I don't disagree with any of your examples and ideas below. I agree
that consciousness deals with models of the world (assuming there is a
world). I agree that time is just sequence (I referred to the
sequential aspect of consciousness). But ISTM that each of your
examples implicitly or
13 matches
Mail list logo
