Re: computationalism and supervenience

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:13:42 -0700

1Z wrote:
>
> 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?

He thinks about a white horse with a horn, both of which exist. What is the meaning
of "Zeus"...it refers through descriptions that have meaningful elements.

>What about a computer thinking
> about a unicorn?

That's what we're puzzling over. Is it meaningless if the computer isn't
conscious...but refers to a horse with a horn if the computer is conscious?

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 Fri Sep 08 2006 - 13:14:42 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST