View Single Post
Old 05-16-2019, 04:01 PM
begbert2 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,599
Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit View Post
Well, I gave an argument demonstrating that computation is subjective, and hence, only fixed by interpreting a certain system as computing a certain function. If whatever does this interpreting is itself computational, then its computation needs another interpretive agency to be fixed, and so on, in an infinite regress; hence, whatever fixes computation can't itself be computational.

And there's no need for souls, or anything like that; anything non-material or non-physical. Computation is really concerned with structural properties: we can simulate something because we can instantiate the right sort of structural relationships within a computer. But relations imply something to bear them, something that actually stands in these relations; but that doesn't carry over to the simulation. After all, that's what makes simulations so useful: if they replicated every property of the thing simulated, they'd just be copies. A simulated tree and a tree aren't the same thing, and neither is a simulated mind and a mind.
What makes simulations so useful is that they can be created for free and it doesn't matter how many times they crash/fail/explode as a result. Also being digital means you don't have a giant pile of crashed/failed/exploded things left lying around that you have to dispose of.

Inaccuracy of behavior or fuctionality, on the other hand, is not a valued aspect of a simulation, and it's bizarre to hear somebody say otherwise.