Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Brent meeker writes: > > >>Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >>>Peter Jones writes: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Like Bruno, I am not claiming that this is definitely the case, just that >>>>>it is the case if >>>>>computationalism is true. Several philosophers (eg. Searle) have used the >>>>>self-evident >>>>>absurdity of the idea as an argument demonstrating that computationalism >>>>>is false - >>>>>that there is something non-computational about brains and consciousness. >>>>>I have not >>>>>yet heard an argument that rejects this idea and saves computationalism. >>>> >>>>[ rolls up sleaves ] >>>> >>>>The idea is easilly refuted if it can be shown that computation doesn't >>>>require >>>>interpretation at all. It can also be refuted more circuitously by >>>>showing that >>>>computation is not entirely a matter of intepretation. In everythingism >>>>, eveything >>>>is equal. If some computations (the ones that don't depend on >>>>interpretation) are >>>>"more equal than others", the way is still open for the Somethinginst >>>>to object >>>>that interpretation-independent computations are really real, and the >>>>others are >>>>mere possibilities. >>>> >>>>The claim has been made that computation is "not much use" without an >>>>interpretation. >>>>Well, if you define a computer as somethin that is used by a human, >>>>that is true. >>>>It is also very problematic to the computationalist claim that the >>>>human mind is a computer. >>>>Is the human mind of use to a human ? Well, yes, it helps us stay alive >>>>in various ways. >>>>But that is more to do with reacting to a real-time environment, than >>>>performing abstract symbolic manipulations or elaborate >>>>re-interpretations. (Computationalists need to be careful about how >>>>they define "computer". Under >>>>some perfectly reasonable definitions -- for instance, defining a >>>>computer as >>>>a human invention -- computationalism is trivially false). >>> >>> >>>I don't mean anything controversial (I think) when I refer to interpretation >>>of >>>computation. Take a mercury thermometer: it would still do its thing if all >>>sentient life in the universe died out, or even if there were no sentient >>>life to >>>build it in the first place and by amazing luck mercury and glass had come >>>together >>>in just the right configuration. But if there were someone around to observe >>>it and >>>understand it, or if it were attached to a thermostat and heater, the >>>thermometer >>>would have extra meaning - the same thermometer, doing the same thermometer >>>stuff. Now, if thermometers were conscious, then part of their "thermometer >>>stuff" might include "knowing" what the temperature was - all by themselves, >>>without >>>benefit of external observer. >> >>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. 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. > > >>>Furthermore, if thermometers were conscious, they >>>might be dreaming of temperatures, or contemplating the meaning of >>>consciousness, >>>again in the absence of external observers, and this time in the absence of >>>interaction >>>with the real world. >>> >>>This, then, is the difference between a computation and a conscious >>>computation. If >>>a computation is unconscious, it can only have meaning/use/interpretation in >>>the eyes >>>of a beholder or in its interaction with the environment. >> >>But this is a useless definition of the difference. To apply we have to know >>whether >>some putative conscious computation has meaning to itself; which we can only >>know by >>knowing whether it is conscious or not. It makes consciousness ineffable and >>so >>makes the question of whether computationalism is true an insoluble mystery. > > > That's what I have in mind. > > >>Even worse it makes it impossible for us to know whether we're talking about >>the same >>thing when we use the word "consciousness". > > > I know what I mean, and you probably know what I mean because despite our > disagreements > our minds are not all that different from each other. Of course, I can't be > absolutely sure that > you are conscious, but it's one of those things even philosophers only worry > about when at > work. On the other hand, there is serious debate about whether dogs are > conscious, or whether > fish feel pain. > > >>>>If a computation is conscious, >>> >>>it may have meaning/use/interpretation in interacting with its environment, >>>including >>>other conscious beings, and for obvious reasons all the conscious >>>computations we >>>encounter will fall into that category; but a conscious computation can also >>>have meaning >>>all by itself, to itself. >> >>I think this is implicitly circular. Consciousness supplies meaning through >>intepretation. But meaning is defined only as what consciousness supplies. >> >>It is to break this circularity that I invoke the role of the enviroment. >>Certainly >>for language, it is our shared environment that makes it possible to assign >>meaning >>to words. > > > I don't see a fundamental problem with using this sort of definition. A > self-expanding > archive is an archive which opens itself without need of external programs. > "Expansion" > and "awareness" are two possible functions that programs can have, and they > can operate > on either themselves or aspects of their environment. > > >>>You might argue, as Brent Meeker has, that a conscious being would >>>quickly lose consciousness if environmental interaction were cut off, but I >>>think that is just >>>a contingent fact about brains, and in any case, as Bruno Marchal has >>>pointed out, you >>>only need a nanosecond of consciousness to prove the point. >> >>I don't think any human can experience consciousness for a nano-second. I >>see that >>as part of the lesson of the Libet's and Grey Walter's experiments. >>Consciousness >>has a time-scale on the order of tenths of a second. But that's only a >>quibble. >> >>The real importance of the environment is not that it keeps our brains from >>falling >>into "do loops", but that it makes interpretation or meaning possible. > > > Why can't you have meaning during a loop? We might be doomed to repeat this > discussion > forever as part of some Nietzchian eternal return, but it will be just as > meaningful to us (or > not) every time. > > >>>>It is of course true that the output of a programme intended to do one >>>>thing >>>>("system S", say) could be re-interpeted as something else. But what >>>>does it *mean* ? >>>>If computationalism is true whoever or whatever is doing the >>>>interpreting is another >>>>computational process. SO the ultimate result is formed by system S in >>>>connjunction >>>>with another systen. System S is merely acting as a subroutine. The >>>>Everythingist's >>>>intended conclusion is that every physical system implements every >>>>computation. >>> >>> >>>That's what I'm saying, but I certainly don't think everyone agrees with me >>>on the list, and >>>I'm not completely decided as to which of the three is more absurd: every >>>physical system >>>implements every conscious computation, no physical system implements any >>>conscious >>>computation (they are all implemented non-physically in Platonia), or the >>>idea that a >>>computation can be conscious in the first place. >> >>Why not reject the first two and accept that computations, to the degree they >>have >>certain structures, are conscious, i.e. self-intepreting relative to their >>environment? >> >> >>>>But the evidence -- the re-interpretation scenario -- only supports the >>>>idea >>>>that any computational system could become part of a larger system that >>>>is >>>>doing something else. System S cannot be said to be simultaneously >>>>perforiming >>>>every possible computation *itself*. The multiple-computaton -- i.e >>>>multiple-interpretation >>>>-- scenario is dependent on a n intepreter. Having made computation >>>>dependent >>>>on interpretation, we cannot the regard the interpreter as redundant, >>>>so that it >>>>is all being done by the system itself. (Of course to fulfil the >>>>"every" in >>>>"every possible interpretation" you need not just interpreters but >>>>every possible intepreter, but that is another problem for another >>>>day..) >>> >>> >>>Only the unconscious thermometers require external thermometer-readers. >> >>Require for what? > > > They don't actually *require* them; they are what they are regardless of the > outside > world. However, something can only have meaning, or taste, or beauty in the > eye of the > beholder, and sometimes the beholder is the object as well as subject. > > Stathis Papaioannou
Aye, there's the rub. What's a beholder? It doesn't behold itself beholding and it doesn't behold much of anything - but I might say it does "behold" the temperature or the expansion of Hg or some such. 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@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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---