[ExI] observer dependent vs. observer independent

[John Clark]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Gordon <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Computers are observer dependent. A computer exists *as such* only
> relative to some observer who regards it as a tool for doing computations.
> The observer/operator assigns that meaning to it.
>

To a human it may mean nothing but a computer can and does assign meaning
to a string of hexadecimal numbers, such as meaning the place in its solid
state memory it should move the information in sector X of its hard drive
to. Gordon, whatever lame scheme you come up with attempting to "prove"
that computers can never be conscious you can use that exact same scheme
without any modification whatsoever to "prove" that your fellow human
beings are not conscious either.

> Unlike computers, it seems the human brain/mind is observer independent.
> You would consider yourself real even if all observers of you were to
> vanish.
>

And you just state that without proof or even argument. You want to prove
that people and computers are fundamentally different so you just state
that people can "consider themselves" but computers can not, and then you
somehow have convince yourself that by stating it you have proven it. It
doesn't work that way.

> I think computationalists in the philosophy mind err when they try to
> equate the brain to a computer
>

OK, and so if you are logically consistent then you would also believe that
Darwin made a error when he wrote his book in 1859; but nobody has accused
you of being logically consistent.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130507/b6f65e0f/attachment.html>