David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Minds and Machines 11 (4):543-566 (2001)
The main claim of this paper is that notions of implementation based on an isomorphic correspondence between physical and computational states are not tenable. Rather, ``implementation'' has to be based on the notion of ``bisimulation'' in order to be able to block unwanted implementation results and incorporate intuitions from computational practice. A formal definition of implementation is suggested, which satisfies theoretical and practical requirements and may also be used to make the functionalist notion of ``physical realization'' precise. The upshot of this new definition of implementation is that implementation cannot distinguish isomorphic bisimilar from non-isomporphic bisimilar systems anymore, thus driving a wedge between the notions of causal and computational complexity. While computationalism does not seem to be affected by this result, the consequences for functionalism are not clear and need further investigations
|Keywords||Causation Complexity Computation Function Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Gualtiero Piccinini (2008). Computers. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (1):32–73.
Gualtiero Piccinini (2007). Computational Modeling Vs. Computational Explanation: Is Everything a Turing Machine, and Does It Matter to the Philosophy of Mind? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (1):93 – 115.
Oron Shagrir (2006). Why We View the Brain as a Computer. Synthese 153 (3):393-416.
Gualtiero Piccinini (2010). The Mind as Neural Software? Understanding Functionalism, Computationalism, and Computational Functionalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (2):269-311.
Nir Fresco (2010). Explaining Computation Without Semantics: Keeping It Simple. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 20 (2):165-181.
Similar books and articles
Emiliano Boccardi (2009). Who's Driving the Syntactic Engine? Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 40 (1):23 - 50.
Arto Salomaa (1985). Computation and Automata. Cambridge University Press.
Lukáš Sekanina (2007). Evolved Computing Devices and the Implementation Problem. Minds and Machines 17 (3):311-329.
Jakub Szymanik (2009). The Computational Complexity of Quantified Reciprocals. In Peter Bosch, David Gabelaia & Jérôme Lang (eds.), Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence 5422, Logic, Language, and Computation 7th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation. Springer
David J. Chalmers (2011). A Computational Foundation for the Study of Cognition. Journal of Cognitive Science 12 (4):323-357.
David J. Chalmers (1994). On Implementing a Computation. Minds and Machines 4 (4):391-402.
Marcin Miłkowski (2012). Is Computation Based on Interpretation? Semiotica 188 (1):219-228.
Matthias Scheutz (1999). When Physical Systems Realize Functions. Minds and Machines 9 (2):161-196.
Michael Rescorla (2013). Against Structuralist Theories of Computational Implementation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (4):681-707.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads54 ( #67,809 of 1,781,303 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #207,233 of 1,781,303 )
How can I increase my downloads?