Brent Meeker wrote:
> >That's not very interesting for non-conscious computations, because
> > they are only useful or meaningful if they can be observed or interact with their
> > environment. However, a conscious computation is interesting all on its own. It
> > might have a fuller life if it can interact with other minds, but its meaning is
> > not contingent on other minds the way a non-conscious computation's is.
>
> Empirically, all of the meaning seems to be referred to things outside the
> computation. So if the conscious computation thinks of the word "chair" it doesn't
> provide any meaning unless there is a chair - outside the computation.
What about when a human thinks about a chair ? What about
when a human thinks about a unicorn? What about a computer thinking
about a unicorn?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Fri Sep 08 2006 - 08:30:03 PDT