3 ms·
most things can be interpreted as computing most other things Chalmers paper is behind a paywall but I dont see how your point makes any sense. A rock is not p
by didntreadarticl 4y ago
most things can be interpreted as computing most other things
Chalmers paper is behind a paywall but I dont see how your point makes any sense. A rock is not processing anything, an insect or a person or a calculator is. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
The states that Putnam argues are happening inside the rock dont mean anything unless some action results from them. You'll notice I mentioned 'actions as a result of processing' above.
- Timon3 4y agoImagine a beam of light hitting a prism. What comes out on the other side is a Fourier transform of the incoming light. Did the prism do a computation? If you say no, how about if I place photo detectors on the other side and measure the result - did I build a computer that does not do computations?
- didntreadarticl 4y agoIf its doing something with the result of the photon detectors, then yes I guess its processing the input and taking some action as a result. Bonus points if the incoming beam or light actually means something (e.g. perhaps it varies when something gets in the way). Congratulations you imagined a processor
- jmoss20 4y agoWhat if I hook some (very hypothetical) actuators up to the rock? Surely the /concept/ doesn't depend on us having the tech to make such actuators...
- didntreadarticl 4y agoCmon guys, rocks arent processors, whatever Putnam may say Unless you're into panpsychism - which I can't discount because although its a ridiculous explanation of consciousness, all the other possible explanations are equally ridiculous