On Monday, March 10, 2014 5:48:42 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > > > > On 7 March 2014 15:46, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote: > >> If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species >> with a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars >> have replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce >> in a different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like >> horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve >> into new styles over time. >> >> Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or >> Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars. They do not >> whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their drivers >> careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a car does >> not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither does it >> need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very >> complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all >> practical purposes than a horse. >> >> Maybe the doctor can replace all species with a functional equivalent? We >> could even do without all of the moving around and just keep the cars in >> the factory in which they are built and include a simulation screen on each >> windshield that interacts with Google Maps. With a powerful enough >> artificial intelligence, why not replace function altogether? >> >> I don't think you understand the essential idea of functionalism, which > is multiple realisability. >
Multiple realisability is the problem. A digital file can be rendered to our visual sense as a graphic design or to our audio sense as music. It can also be copied, translated, or functionally manipulated in every way without being rendered at all. > You try to think of analogies to show that it's not obvious, but we know > it's not obvious. However, it's true. > It's even less obvious than you think. What you are thinking is not obvious is only halfway there. > You don't address the arguments showing it to be true. It's like focussing > on how we would fall off the earth if it were round but failing to explain > the photos from space. > What argument specifically are you saying that I don't address? Craig > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
