Brent Meeker wrote:
> And evolution constructs brains to be essentially deterministic for the
> same reason. So is it your theory that any deterministic sequence of
> states constitutes computation and the reason a rock doesn't instantiate
> computation is that, at the microscopic level its state changes are
> dominated by quantum randomness?
My theory is that to implement an algorithm something needs to
have the counteractuals that are part of the algorithm.
A machine needs to have distinct states (unlike a rock) and
to have them counterfactually/causally linked (unlike a cloud of gas),
> This thread started with a discussion of what computation could be
> counted as intelligent - or Stathis prefers "conscious". Does your
> distinction entail that intelligence (or consciousness) is deterministic?
I never said intelligence was computational in the first place !
> 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 Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:06:03 PDT