David Nyman wrote: > On 25/06/07, *Russell Standish* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: ... > RS: The conscious entity that the computer implements would know about > it. It is not imaginary to itself. And by choosing to interpret the > computer's program in that way, rather than say a tortured backgammon > playing program, we open a channel of communication with the > consciousness it implements. > > DN: .......you mean that if functionalism is true, then though any of > the myriad interpretations of the physics might possibly evoke an > observer world (although presumably most would be incoherent), only > interpretations we are able to 'interact with', precisely because of the > consistency of their externalised behaviour with us and our environment, > are relevant (causally or otherwise) *to us*. And if this can be shown > to converge on a *unique* such interpretation for a given physical > system, in effect this would then satisfy my criterion of supervening on > *some* distinguishable or unique set of physical relations, even if we > couldn't say what it was. So this, then, would be the 'other mind' - and > from this perspective, all the other interpretations are 'imaginary' > *for us*.
If I understand you, I would agree with the clarification that this convergence has been performed by evolution; so that for us it is in the most part hardwired at birth. And this hardwired interpretation of the world is something that co-evolved with sensory and manipulative organs. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
