Assumptions: A1. The Brain is not a computer (not similar to a computer, either digital or analog). A2. The Universe is not a computer, neither digital, analog, or other variety. Premises: P1. A computer is a mechanism that does something physical according to some rules. (Being computer-centric implies being physicalist-centric). Conclusions: C1. The Brain is not a mechanism that does something physical according to some rules. (i.e., there are no rules, and hence no regularity) to the brain's workings). C2. The Universe is not a mechanism that does something physical according to some rules. (i.e., there are no rules for the universes' workings).
QED. From: [email protected] Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:27:06 -0700 Subject: Re: [agi] "The universe is a computer" To: [email protected] On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: Let's assume the contrary and see if we can arrive at falsum. The Brain is not a computer, and is not similar to a computer, either digital or analog. The Universe is not a computer, neither digital, analog, or any other variety. What can we now infer? ~PM. Well, under those assumptions I think that would put us squarely in the vitalism camp. The thing that is still a bit of trouble under this argument is the notion of what IS a computer in the first place. You'd need to establish that first. Reading popular press like this, the wikis, etc etc, it seems like that notion of computer has been taken far beyond what Turing originally had in mind (I know he also had the oracle, which is supercomputing, but for the most part people think of computer as the digital or analog device. I think really what computer means now is simply some mechanicsm that does something *physical* according to some rules, ie., when you are computer-centric you are physicalist-centric. From: [email protected] Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:02:09 -0700 Subject: Re: [agi] "The universe is a computer" To: [email protected] The problem I have with the "universe is a computer" claim is like this: AI/AGI is tough. It is not clear how AGI could run on a Turing machine, thus some people think it will take a super-Turing machine, but this still falls under the definition of computer to some people, since it seems like some people define computer as just some mechanism that does something according to some rules. The human brain has also been declared a computer. Now if we then declare ALL of reality to be a computer, that is, the "universe is a computer," then suddenly we seem to have solved the AGI problem, since if the universe is a computer, the AGI is thus by that stroke computational. Then it becomes just a problem of figuring out what the computations are. The problem I have with that, if I have it "right" is that there seems to be some wild leaps and conflations going on. I guess I wish people would reign in what they mean by computer. AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
