Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes (quoting SP):
>
>
>>> The constraints (a) and (b) you mention are ad hoc and an
>>> unnecessary complication. Suppose Klingon computers change their
>>> internal code every clock cycle according to the well-documented
>>> radioactive decay pattern of a sacred stone 2000 years ago. If we
>>> got our hands on one of these computers and monitored its
>>> internal states it would seem completely random; but if we had
>>> the Klingon manual, we would see that the computer was actually
>>> multiplying two numbers, or implementing a Klingon AI, or
>>> whatever. Would you say that these computations were not valid
>>> because it's a dumb way to design a computer?
>>
>> I'd say that a defintion of "computer" that applies to everything
>> is useless.
>
>
> I agree, it's completely useless to *us* because we couldn't interact
> with it. That would be the end of the matter unless we say that
> computation can lead to consciousness, creating as it were its own
> observer. Are you prepared to argue that the aforementioned Klingon
> AI suddenly stops being conscious when the last copy of the manual
> which would allow us to interact with it is destroyed?
If it's intelligent we should be able to interact with it without a manual.
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Jul 29 2006 - 02:16:21 PDT