>Samantha Atkins wrote:
>> >
>> > Emlyn wrote:
>> > > The problem is that we are equating consciousness with
>information.
>> > > I don't think that it is information.
>> >
>>
>> Is a computer program information? Yes, when looked at statically as
>> bits, no when considered dynamically running in some system.
>
>Exactly! And consciousness it the running program (process), or even an
>emergent property of the process, and not in any way is it the program
>itself. Techies metaphor: One program, run twice, yields two distinct
>processes.
As a computer engineer, I'm going to have to put my foot down here.
I think that you're assuming that since you don't understand how
something could be done, that you think that it can't be done.
In fact, you can stop a running process and store it as information.
What do you think happens when you put most laptops to sleep? All of
the relevant processes running are swapped out to disk along with
their states along with everything else in RAM, as well of the
registers and caches of the CPU and any relevant I/O device.
You could remove the hard drive from that first machine and duplicate
it exactly. Then, you could take both hard drives and put them back
in identical laptops and "wake" them. They would both be running all
the same programs you were - all at the same point of execution
points as when you put them to sleep. Which was the original? Who
cares?
Assuming that human beings are just biological computers, it should
eventually be possible to use the same techniques once we work out
all of the neurochemical details.
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT