Cogprints

Structure and Dynamics in Implementation of Computations

Mallah, Dr. Jacques (2014) Structure and Dynamics in Implementation of Computations. [Conference Paper] (Unpublished)

Warning

There is a more recent version of this eprint available. Click here to view it.

Full text available as:

[img]
Preview
 PDF
171Kb

Abstract

Without a proper restriction on mappings, virtually any system could be seen as implementing any computation. That would not allow characterization of systems in terms of implemented computations and is not compatible with a computationalist philosophy of mind. Information-based criteria for independence of substates within structured states are proposed as a solution. Objections to the use of requirements for transitions in counterfactual states are addressed, in part using the partial-brain argument as a general counterargument to neural replacement arguments.

Item Type:Conference Paper
Keywords:structure, dynamics, implementation, computation, independence, inheritance, transference, counterfactual, structured states, neural replacement, partial brain
Subjects:Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
Computer Science > Dynamical Systems
Philosophy > Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy > Philosophy of Science
ID Code:9207
Deposited By: Mallah, Dr. Jacques
Deposited On:25 Feb 2014 12:52
Last Modified:10 May 2014 00:07

Available Versions of this Item

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

[1] D. Chalmers. Does a Rock Implement Every Finite-State Automaton? Synthese, 108:309-33 (1996).

[2] H. Putnam. Representation and Reality. MIT Press (1988).

[3] Searle, J.R. Is the brain a digital computer? Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 64:21-37 (1990).

[4] M. Tegmark. The Mathematical Universe. Foundations of Physics, 38:101-150 (2008).

[5] D. Chalmers. The Varieties of Computation: A Reply. Journal of Cognitive Science, 13:211-248 (2012).

[6] M. Sprevak. Three challenges to Chalmers on computational implementation. Journal of Cognitive Science, 13:107–143 (2012).

[7] D. Joslin. Real realization: Dennett’s real patterns versus Putnam’s ubiquitous automata. Minds and Machines, 16:29–41 (2006).

[8] M. Bishop. Counterfactuals cannot count: a rejoinder to David Chalmers. Consciousness & Cognition, 11:4:642-652 (2002).

[9] T. Maudlin. Computation and consciousness. The Journal of Philosophy, 86:407–432 (1989).

[10] M. Muhlestein. Counterfactuals, Computation, and Consciousness. Cognitive Computation, 5:1:99-105 (2013).

[11] B. Marchal. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 113(1):127-40 (2013).

[12] D. Chalmers. Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia. In: Conscious Experience. T. Metzinger (Ed). Imprint Academic (1995).

[13] J. Mallah. The partial brain thought experiment: partial consciousness and its implications. Unpublished manuscript. http://cogprints.org/6321/ (2009)

[14] A. Pruss. Functionalism and Counting Minds. Unpublished manuscript. https://bearspace.baylor.edu/Alexander_Pruss/www/papers/CountingMinds.html (2004).

[15] J. Mallah. The Many Computations Interpretation (MCI) of Quantum Mechanics. Unpublished manuscript. arXiv:0709.0544v1 [quant-ph] (2007)

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Cogprints is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.