On 5/17/2017 2:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
The problem comes only if you attempt to "reverse interpret" these transformations, in the computationalist framework, *as computation per se* and hence, by assumption, as having a supervenience relation with consciousness. This then introduces an ambiguity into the notion of such supervenience which is eliminated when the extraneous attachment to physical action is discarded. In short, physical action is always open to interpretation (or, alternatively, observation) whereas computation, properly understood, must be defined unambiguously in its very definition.
But that unambiguous definition is just a symbol manipulation game with no reference to what give consciousness content. Bruno wants mathematical models to provide the referents, but that's not what I'm conscious of.
Brent -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
