2 ms·

> This is not true. Computing is a system where the physical hardware (the computer) is following rules that are explicitly encoded in itself - you can analyze

by hsn915 4y ago

> This is not true. Computing is a system where the physical hardware (the computer) is following rules that are explicitly encoded in itself - you can analyze the system and discover where and how the program it is following is encoded (as we did with DNA). 1) No. The rules are just physics. Electric signals going through physical material. 2) Why is this event relevant? I can say the same about water pipes in a sweage system . The way the water moves through pipes is encoded in the design and connections of the pipes. You can inspect it to figure out how it behaves. I've yet to see a model of consciousness that does not imply that the sewage system is conscious.

tsimionescu 4y ago
> 1) No. The rules are just physics. Electric signals going through physical material. This is the wrong level of abstraction. Sure, ultimately everything happening in the CPU is electrical, but still the rules controlling what is shown on the screen are encoded in the OS code. If you encoded the same program in a mechanical computer, you would get the same results. It's not the electrical rules that are important, it's the program. > 2) Why is this event relevant? I can say the same about water pipes in a sweage system . The way the water moves through pipes is encoded in the design and connections of the pipes. You can inspect it to figure out how it behaves. Yes, I believe you can say that this system is performing a computation. I'm not sure if you can make a Turing complete computer in this way (I'm not sure how you could encode an If), but for example you can definitely write a program (arrange some pipes) to do some basic arithmetic. > I've yet to see a model of consciousness that does not imply that the sewage system is conscious. The claim is "Consciousness is a computation", not "any kind of computation is a form of consciousness". So, there is no immediate contradiction between believing "my consciousness is a computational process" and "this pocket watch is not conscious". Just like I can beleieve that consciousness is a physical phenomenon without believing that rocks are conscious.

by hsn915 4y ago

tsimionescu 4y ago

> 1) No. The rules are just physics. Electric signals going through physical material. This is the wrong level of abstraction. Sure, ultimately everything happening in the CPU is electrical, but still the rules controlling what is shown on the screen are encoded in the OS code. If you encoded the same program in a mechanical computer, you would get the same results. It's not the electrical rules that are important, it's the program. > 2) Why is this event relevant? I can say the same about water pipes in a sweage system . The way the water moves through pipes is encoded in the design and connections of the pipes. You can inspect it to figure out how it behaves. Yes, I believe you can say that this system is performing a computation. I'm not sure if you can make a Turing complete computer in this way (I'm not sure how you could encode an If), but for example you can definitely write a program (arrange some pipes) to do some basic arithmetic. > I've yet to see a model of consciousness that does not imply that the sewage system is conscious. The claim is "Consciousness is a computation", not "any kind of computation is a form of consciousness". So, there is no immediate contradiction between believing "my consciousness is a computational process" and "this pocket watch is not conscious". Just like I can beleieve that consciousness is a physical phenomenon without believing that rocks are conscious.