On naturalism and consciousness

[The Grand Nudger]

Not "who", -what-, in comp theory (or at least my particular take on it). A "who" is unnecessary. Computation proceeds regardless.

That's ridiculous. The "meaning" is described at the level of architecture. It doesn't require any "knowing" or a "subject" , let alone a "knowing subject". The circuit "means" that the light comes on or off when the switch gets flipped - even if the flipper doesn't know how that occurs, and even if the mechanism arose by a process of which we are entirely ignorant (have no knowledge of). That light switch- will still mean what it means, and still do the work - even if there were no "knowing subjects" (humans, in this case) present -anywhere-.

The only requirement that switch has is energy. It's structural composition already grants it opportunity.

The only thing that is ridiculous is your assertion that a physical system, like a switch has meaning apart from a knowing subject.

Think I explained that pretty well Chad. Definitely didn;t leave it hanging as an assertion.

You say that when a light goes on and off that conveys meaning,

There is no conveyance. The light going on and off -is- the meaning.....

but what meaning.

.....of the circuit

The light could mean anything from "the bathroom is occupied" to "system overload".

Then it wouldn't be a light switch we're discussing, would it? Different architecture, different discussion. Data being fed into different gates has different outcome based upon both the inputs and the structure of the gates. You aren;t adding any problem for me to solve, you're asking me to solve the same problem ( which is simple), gates in series.

Your physical monist theory does not account for the difference between signs and significance.

Of course it does, as the gates can abstract either without deviating from whatever language is used by the entirety of the system in question. Not that they need to abstract any difference at all - because "signs" -are- "significance" within that context. If they -needed- to translate this into some other form so that a separate system (one that does attempt to split signs and significance into two distinct groups) could make use of the data we'd need to have a structure or programming language capable of doing so. Like a binary/decimal decoder.

See, this is the reason that I get into these discussions. Not because I think that human beings are suped up PC's - but because people say things like "such and such doesn't/can't account for". Yes, such and such does and can account for it - that's both how and why PC's work. If it didn't they wouldn't. Whether or not these are the principles at play -in our minds- is an open question, but even without "us" around (and even if we were the only things with "mind") those gates would still possess what we refer to as meaning (that's pretty much what they're composed of - from one angle, or it's exactly what they do - from another. The physical structure of the gate is interchangeable with it's meaning, which is interchangeable with it's function -and it's function can be performed on data from a system with entirely dissimilar underpinnings.

What you'd most likely be chipping at with this is the representative value of those abstractions, how well we might expect them to perform. That they are possible and accounted for is simply beyond doubt. You;re going to respond to me leveraging the principles in just a bit. It's not even theoretical, it's practical. That's just considering that you'll be using a computer to respond. Do I think you might be double dipping into my ketchup when you, as a biological entity - go about "deciding" what to type...yeah, I do, but I do know enough to know that it's of an entirely different magnitude than anything going on in your pc..lol.