RE: computationalism and supervenience

From: Stathis Papaioannou <>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:04:12 +1000

Peter Jones writes:

> > I'm not sure how the multiverse comes into the discussion, but you have
> > made the point several times that a computation depends on an observer
> No, I haven't! I have tried ot follow through the consequences of
> assuming it must.
> It seems to me that some sort of absurdity or contradiction ensues.

OK. This has been a long and complicated thread.
> > for its meaning. I agree, but *if* computations can be conscious (remember,
> > this is an assumption) then in that special case an external observer is not
> > needed.
> Why not ? (Well, I would be quite happy that a conscious
> computation would have some inherent structural property --
> I want to foind out why *you* would think it doesn't).

I think it goes against standard computationalism if you say that a conscious
computation has some inherent structural property. Opponents of computationalism
have used the absurdity of the conclusion that anything implements any conscious
computation as evidence that there is something special and non-computational
about the brain. Maybe they're right.

Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sun Sep 10 2006 - 22:05:10 PDT

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