(April 12, 2015 at 7:26 am)Rhythm Wrote: A good start to describing a rock -as- a processor, even if it isn't one...... and since you're clearly not interested in any discussion in which a rock is not processing..then so be it. So, what logical functions do you think you could achieve with that behavior? What sorts of comp systems do you think I could build out of a "processor" with that/those functions?Probably nothing. But I think we already agree that we aren't saying something is mind just because we find its particular form of processing useful. That represents an overly arbitrary definition.
Quote:"Mind is intrinsic" doesn't -explain- anything and theres no mechanics whatsoever mentioned in that......and I'm not sure how you would even go about demonstrating that this were true....even if it were. Meanwhile, comp is explanatory and demonstrable.It's demonstrable that some systems meet your definition of computation. However, it is not demonstrated that simpler systems don't also produce simple minds, or that processing complexity of a particular type leads to the actual experience of qualia outside the context of an organic brain, rather than a machine which behaves AS THOUGH it experiences qualia.
I like the comp idea because you are giving a pretty definite answer to the question "what is mind." That's a leap ahead of most other explanations. However, I want you to refine what processing is, what kind produces mind, and most importantly-- how would we use this idea to locate systems outside of our experiences on Earth (life + computers) which definitely had minds?
