On 21/02/2008, John Ku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By the way, I think this whole tangent was actually started by Richard > misinterpreting Lanier's argument (though quite understandably given > Lanier's vagueness and unclarity). Lanier was not imagining the > amazing coincidence of a genuine computer being implemented in a > rainstorm, i.e. one that is robustly implementing all the right causal > laws and the strong conditionals Chalmers talks about. Rather, he was > imagining the more ordinary and really not very amazing coincidence of > a rainstorm bearing a certain superficial isomorphism to just a trace > of the right kind of computation. He rightly notes that if > functionalism were committed to such a rainstorm being conscious, it > should be rejected.
Only if it is incompatible with the world we observe. -- Stathis Papaioannou ------------------------------------------- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
