Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
From: Lupton@luptonpj.demon.co.uk (Peter Lupton)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!demon!luptonpj.demon.co.uk!Lupton
Subject: Re: Strong AI and consciousness
References: <CzsJoI.EJs@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <vlsi_libCzHB5I.Fn7@netcom.com> <3aj4a9$9ct@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3b0o42$i2g@news.u.washington.edu> <1994Nov24.123227.27677@oxvaxd>
Distribution: world
Organization: No Organisation
Reply-To: Lupton@luptonpj.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.6
Lines:  62
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 1994 12:57:10 +0000
Message-ID: <499572533wnr@luptonpj.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article: <CzsJoI.EJs@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>  pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) 
writes:
> 
> In article <1994Nov24.123227.27677@oxvaxd>,  <econrpae@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
> .........
> >One necessary condition for something to be running a program is that it
> >contains a constituent which...
> >
> >1. We as external observers naturally interpret as a data-structure
> >signifying some facts or proposition
> >
> Shape of the rock may easily be such a data structure.
> Note that "naturally" is a subjective term. Or can you give "an objective"
> definition of "natural interpretation"?
> 
> >2. Independent of that external semantic attribution, plays a causal role
> >in the object's activity.
> >
> Rocks' shapes play causal role in rocks' behaviour on different surfaces 
> (which could be interpreted as input data for the program).
> 
> >(taken from Brian Smith's Knowledge Representation
> >Hypothesis).
> >
> I am afraid this looks like full of holes big enough to run a long program 
> through :-).
> 
> >Now a rock has no such constituent which we could interpret as a
> >data-structure. This is why we cannot see it as running a program.
> >
> As indicated above, a rock has such a constituent. You are just not looking
> at it in a right way.

I'm all ears. In order to explain how come the rock is running a 
program, I need to know how it is to be programmed. Then the
question of what program is being run falls out.

Programming is closely related to the theory of recursive
functions and universality. The problem is this: given my
desire to program the following recursive function, what
finite collection of things do I need to know about this 
rock in order to set about the task of programming it?

Now I don't know whether it makes sense to talk about programming
a rock - I suspect it doesn't. But that question cannot be answered
merely by mentioning the surface of the rock and the waving of
hands.

Cheers,
Pete Lupton
> 
> Andrzej
> -- 
> Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
> University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
> Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
> pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
> 
> 


