[Wittrs] Re: What Is Ontological Dualism?
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:41:21 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
>> There's no need for me to define "solely by virtue of running a
>> program," as that is not an important distinction for me. The focus
>> on the CPU comes from focus in Searle's argument.
> where else would a program execute but in the CPU (or, some
> processing unit if there are more than one)?
A computation is defined by the sequence of operations (the sequence of
changes to the system as a whole). That we use a central processor to
mediate those operations is merely an artifact of how we implement
computation.
The first "computer" that I ever programmed consisted of a room full of
clerks, each carrying out part of the operations with the aid of
mechanical calculating machines. There was no central processor in
that "computer."
> you were the one claiming that the CRA did not prove anything about
> whether the 'system' experienced subjective experiences.
Person X claims to prove theorem A. I point out that the proof is
defective. It does not follow that I am required to prove the converse
of A. It does not even follow that I believe A is false. It only
follows that the claimed proof is defective.
Regards,
Neil
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
