Imagine a rock in the shape of a chessboard with pieces in a certain configuration.
Throw the rock down a particular hill. The hill is shaped in such a way that, given the correct throw, the chessboard-rock will be chipped and flinted in a deterministic way as it rolls and bounces down.
At the en...
No, but it would under the naive theory of implementing computations, see Sprevak:"This chapter examines four triviality arguments from, respectively, Ian Hinckfuss, John Searle, Hilary Putnam, and David Chalmers... I argue that they succeed in ruling out a classical ‘mapping’ theory of computational implementation. This theory takes isomorphism between a formal computational model and a physical system to be a sufficient condition for implementation."
As @Xavier points out, this is discussed in Hofstadter, and also in Aaronson's quantum-computing notes. The typical example uses a waterfall; the permutation of water molecules implements a great many computations, although we can't access them without labeling each molecule somehow.
These typa questions reflect, from a particular standpoint, a deep misunderstanding of reality. Even so, this, whatever this is, is the horse everyone seems ta be betting their life on. Lemme not get in the way.
"is it only a matter of interpretation whether every falling rock could be said to be computing consciousness?" We easily agree that the hill is not "self conscious" of performing a computation; but then neither my pocket calculator is. And what about my desktop?
When we think hard though, we find 'true' isn't in the 'facts', it is in the whole situation of evaluating them, and never stand separately from them. From: 'Why is a measured true value “TRUE”?' philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/81664/30474
Computation involves mathematical operations, and mathematics is a (human) mental process. Although rocks don't perform mathematical operations, they can be said to perform equivalent processes.
Computation is about intent and modeling something else. You can use physical processes to do this, but a physical process just doing what it does in order to do what it does is not computation.
The best I can think of is that the rock is performing the process of mapping the hill. It's not computing chess moves. This question also reminds me of the Chinese Room paradox.
@JimmyJames A computer is put into a specific configuration that corresponds to the computation we want it to solve. So unless you can control the shape of the hill to match a particular computation, it's not doing anything.
@JimmyJames OTOH, there are some people who posit that the entire universe is a computer, and the "laws of nature" are its program. Everything that happens is the output.
@Barmar It's all about how you interpret the question. I think the OP is imagining some sort of very complex design which would 'calculate' the answer like some sort of mechanical computer designed by Rube Goldberg. I don't think it's at all feasible but I'll accept the premise as part of a thought experiment.
@JimmyJames Yeah, they seem to be saying that the hill or rock can be put into a specific configuration. In that case, I guess it IS a computer, just like wiring up an electronic computer.
@Barmar Or maybe you find a hill with the exact shape needed. Check my answer, I think a simpler example that is actually feasible in reality is more apt.
@JimmyJames Finding a hill the the exact shape needed is venturing into "blind watchmaker" territory. I think computation requires some intentionality -- if you connect a bunch of wires randomly, it will produce some output, but I don't think we consider it to be computing anything.
@Barmar I hear you. That's why I don't think it's a great analogy. And the implication that calculating chess moves implies consciousness is odd. We've had computers that do this better than people for a while now and they are as stupid as rocks (pun intended.)
@JimmyJames Yes, computers are dumb. The people who program them are smart. You're not going to find a random bunch of electronics that happen to play chess. It took natural selection billions of years to produce people capable of this.
@Barmar If we have billions of monkeys making mechanical computers for an infinite period, eventually one of them will make one that tells us that "bishop to e4" is the best move.
@JimmyJames: That, is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of an outregeous boulder, or by opposition stop it rolling.. The monkeys typewriting is in fact, quite illustrative: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem#Actual_monkeys
Anything can be an analog computer if you want it to view it that way ... it does what it does, and if you find observing the results of what it did to be informative, then you have a useful result. (e.g. A centrifuge makes a great sorting algorithm, as long as you want to sort by density)
@CriglCragl "the lead male began striking the keyboard with a stone, and other monkeys followed by urinating and defecating on the machine." ... I need to revise my programmer staffing recommendations.
Discussion on question by MeltyButter…
Discussion on question by MeltyButter…