Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
>
>
>>>>>Every physical system contains if-then statements. If the grooves on the
>>>>>record were different, then the sound coming out of the speakers would also be
>>>>>different.
>>>>
>>>>That's not a statement contained in the physical system; it's a statement about
>>>>other similar physical systems that you consider possible. You could as well
>>>>say, (print "Hello world.") contains an if-then because if the characters in the
>>>>string were different the output would be different.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't see how you could make the distinction well-defined.
>>
>>That's my point. Counterfactuals are defined relative to some environment/data/input
>>which we suppose to be possibly different. It's not so much that it's not well
>>defined, but that it's aribtrarily defined. So I think lz's point about intelligence
>>requiring counterfactuals is the same as saying intelligence is relative to some
>>environment - a view with which I agree. In the case of reproducing organisms the
>>organism/environment distinction is clear. In a simulation it's not.
>
>
> Sorry to keep returning to this, but it's important. I still don't see how you can distinguish
> between the conditionals in a computer program and the conditionals inherent in any
> physical system. A computer is a device set up so that input A results in output B, while
> input C results in output D. The conditional is inherent even if the C->D branch is never
> realised because it *could* be realised. But a rock is also a device set up so that input
> A results in output B while input C results in output D: if you push it on its left side (A) it
> moves to the right (B) while if you push it on its right side (C) it moves to the left (D). The
> rock has this inherent conditional behaviour even if the C->D branch is never realised,
> because it *could* be realised if things had been different.
OK, I take your point. But the movement of the rock right or left is not a property
of the rock. The rock is not computing its motion. But by including spacetime,
inertia, etc, I will grant that the system computes. And it has implicit if-thens
because you suppose you could have pushed it the other way; even if you don't.
>If you include the computer's
> data in the program then it becomes an inputless system, a self-contained simulation. If
> you include yourself, the rock and everything else that might interact with it in one system
> you have a self-contained, inputless universe. Both the closed simulation and the universe
> (in the absence of CI type quantum randomness) are at least as deterministic as what we
> normally call a recording, despite all the conditionals, because it is rather more likely that I
> will change a recording than that God will intervene to push rocks around or provide
> computers with miraculous inputs.
Right. So within this simulation you may say there are intelligent subsystems by
making a somewhat arbitrary cut between subsystem and environment. This still seems
different from a recording though. The recording is only of the paths actually
taken, whereas looking at the program you can see other paths that could have been
taken - just as you say the rock computes because you *could have* pushed it the
other way.
And in anycase there does seem to be quantum randomness.
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 Wed Aug 23 2006 - 12:28:54 PDT