On 24/02/2008, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric B. Ramsay wrote: > > Imagine a sufficiently large computer that works according to the > architecture of our ordinary > > PC's. In the space of Operating Systems (code interpreters), we can > > find an operating system such that it will run the input from the > rainstorm such that it appears identical to a computer running a brain > > > To "find" this operating system with reasonable resources would > require intelligence -- the exact intelligence which Lanier is > looking for but failing to identify.
Yes it would require intelligence to "find" it, but your mental state is not contingent on someone else "finding" it. Nor is this an argument against functionalism. Consider Arithmetical Functionalism: the theory that a calculation is multiply realisable, in any device that has the right functional organisation. But this might mean that somewhere in the vastness of the universe, a calculation such as 2 + 2 = 4 might be being implemented purely by chance: in the causal relationship between atoms in an interstellar gas cloud, for example. This is clearly ridiculous, so *either* Arithmetical Functionalism is false *or* it is impossible that a calculation will be implemented accidentally. Right? -- 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
