Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Brent meeker writes: > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Peter Jones writes:
> > We should ask ourselves how do we know the thermometer isn't conscious of > > the > > temperature? It seems that the answer has been that it's state or activity > > *could* > > be intepreted in many ways other than indicating the temperature; therefore > > it must > > be said to unconscious of the temperature or we must allow that it > > implements all > > conscious thought (or at least all for which there is a possible > > interpretative > > mapping). But I see it's state and activity as relative to our shared > > environment; > > and this greatly constrains what it can be said to "compute", e.g. the > > temperature, > > the expansion coefficient of Hg... With this constraint, then I think > > there is no > > problem in saying the thermometer is conscious at the extremely low level > > of being > > aware of the temperature or the expansion coefficient of Hg or whatever > > else is > > within the constraint. > > I would basically agree with that. Consciousness would probably have to be a > continuum > if computationalism is true. I don't think that follows remotely. It is true that it is vastly better to interpret a column of mercury as a temperature-sensor than a pressure-sensor or a radiation-sensor. That doesn't mean the thermometer knows that in itself. Computationalism does not claim that every computation is conscious. If consciousness supervenes on inherent non-interprtation-dependent features, it can supervene on features which are binary, either present or absent. For instance, whether a programme examines or modifies its own code is surely such a feature. >Even if computationalism were false and only those machines > specially blessed by God were conscious there would have to be a continuum, > across > different species and within the lifespan of an individual from birth to > death. The possibility > that consciousness comes on like a light at some point in your life, or at > some point in the > evolution of a species, seems unlikely to me. Surely it comes on like a light whenver you wake up. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
