There would be differences between the complex conscious computers

Because the computers needed to instantiate a consciousness program would in reality be so large and complex, there would have to be differences in physical activity between the two systems.

The supervenience thesis wouldn't be violated then, because the physical activity underpinning the conscious system and the nonconscious system would be different. So computationalism isn't self-contradictory.

Argument anticipated by Tim Maudlin (1989).

The argument as anticipated by Maudlin

Maudlin writes:

"To avoid getting bogged down in general claims, let us look more closely at the details of Olympia, and at the sorts of changes which are sufficient to defeat the support of counterfactuals provided by the blocked machinery. Above we considered the cases of Olympia running with and without the idle machinery present. Because of the immense quantity of machinery involved, one might misgive that its removal would necessitate some considerable change in the physical happenings associated with the machine." p.425

References

Maudlin, Tim. 1989. Computation and Consciousness. The Journal of Philosophy, vol. LXXXVI, no. 8. p. 407-432.
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Artificial Intelligence
Can computers think? [1]
No: computers can't be conscious [6]
Implementable in functional system
Computationalism
Computationalism contradicts itself
There would be differences between the complex conscious computers
A block in the cog
Causal interaction necessary for consciousness
Reject supervenience
The physical activity is different in each system
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip