Advertisement

Virtual Machines: Nonreductionist Bridges Between the Functional and the Physical

  • Matthias ScheutzEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Cognitive Systems Monographs book series (COSMOS, volume 22)

Abstract

Various notions of supervenience have been proposed as a solution to the “mind–body problem” to account for the dependence of mental states on their realizing physical states. In this chapter, we view the mind–body problem as an instance of the more general problem of how a virtual machine (VM) can be implemented in other virtual or physical machines. We propose a formal framework for defining virtual machine architectures and how they are composed of interacting functional units. The aim is to define a rich notion of implementation that can ultimately show how virtual machines defined in different ontologies can be related by way of implementing one virtual machine in another virtual (or physical) machine without requiring that the ontology in which the implemented VM is defined to be reducible to the ontology of the implementing VM.

Keywords

Virtual Machine Functional Unit Body Problem Mental Property Output Channel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper would not have been possible without the many discussions with Aaron Sloman the author was fortunate to have over the years, although Aaron is by no means to blame for any errors or potential problems with the specific content.

References

  1. Barwise J, Seligman J (1998) Information flow. The logic of distributed systems. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 44. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Chalmers D (1996) Does a rock implement every finite-state automaton? Synthese 108:309–333Google Scholar
  3. Copeland J (1996) What is computation? Synthese 108:335–359CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Gandy R (1980) Church’s thesis and principles for mechanisms. Stud Log Found Math 101:123–148Google Scholar
  5. Heil J (1995) Supervenience redux. In: Elias E. Savellos, Yalcin U (eds) Supervenience: new essays. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Kim J (1984) Concepts of supervenience. Philos Phenomel Res 14:153–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kim J (1993) Supervenience and mind: selected philosophical essays. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim J (1998) Mind in a physical world. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  9. Papineau D (1995) Arguments for supervenience and physical realization. In: Savellos E, Yalcin U (eds) Supervenience. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Petria B (1987) Global supervenience and reduction. Philos Phenomel Res 48:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pollock J (2008) What am i? virtual machines and the mind/body problem. Philos Phenomel Res 76:237–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pylyshyn Z (1984) Computation and cognition. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Scheutz M (1999) When physical systems realize functions. Mind Mach 9:161–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Scheutz M (2001) Causal versus computational complexity? Mind Mach 11:534–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shannon RE (1975) Systems simulation: the art and science. Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  16. Sloman A (1998) Supervenience and implementation. Technical Report, School of Computer Science, University of BirminghamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations