From: Stathis Papaioannou (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Mar 23 2008 - 22:42:09 MDT
On 24/03/2008, Lee Corbin <email@example.com> wrote:
> > The physics of the machine is just there to determine that the right
> > state transitions consistently occur. A model of an AND gate does not
> > have to involve a simulation of semiconductor physics; the only
> > purpose of the physics is to ensure that the state transitions in a
> > simple lookup table are followed.
> And who says that there's never any progress in email discussions?
> It sounds as though you have finished asking about my requirements
> for a computation to be conscious. If not, pray continue.
> Then we disagree, as follows. Your last paragraph conveys, though
> naturally too briefly, one standard way of saying what a computation is.
> That your views lead directly to beliefs I consider faintly absurd does
> not bother you at all, since you endorse the final results of my
> reduction anyway.
Do I take that as meaning you don't agree that a person following a
truth table - such and such an input leads to such and such an output
- could simulate a logic gate? Even though you could in theory build
an entire computer from such components that would run any program a
store-bought computer could run?
-- Stathis Papaioannou
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT