Ben,
This overlaps with the "computable universe" thread - the laws of physics don't
relate to any form of mind or mentation or semiotics or reflection let alone
computation. IOW you're saying ths is what you *think* without giving a valid
reason or really wanting to explore the Spivey propositions. Fine. But maybe
you should ask yourself why *is* the brain divided the way it is? According to
you there's no reason.
Ben,
According to the known laws of physics, analog computers cannot compute
anything different than what digital computers can...
if by "compute" you mean "produce results observable by finite-precision
instruments like human eyes and ears"
-- ben g
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben,
I don't understand what difference B) makes - or how it would affect the
objection that current approaches are discrete, stepped vs the dynamic,
continuous reality of conscious processing.
(My own take would be that current computers can't handle the movie of
consciousness - although at times they appear to come close - they pretty
clearly represent only one half at best of a complete brain/mind. And logic
and mathematics are clearly opposed to and different from the visual & other
arts, and again pretty clearly represent only one half of the "two cultures".
One should add that these two halves are not just opposed but complementary and
interdependent. Such conflicted, divided design BTW is absolutely fundamental
to biological design - from the brain to muscles to the autonomic nervous
system. It would be strange if invention, especially in the coming decade of
video doesn't take a cue from nature to develop sophisticated analogical as
well as digital computers)
Ben:
Well, you need to distinguish between
A) "the contemporary, von Neumann computer as a metaphor"
and
B) "the abstract, mathematical computer as a theoretical framework"
These are really quite different things ...
-- Ben G
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben,
He is v. explicitly talking about a "paradigm shift" and the
mind-as-computer as just one in a series of technological metaphors. Perhaps
this will be clearer if you look at his latest book The Continuity of Mind on
Amazon, where you can read the introduction. (Sheer philosophy-of-science
commonsense tells you that at least broadly he has to be right - IOW the
computer as we know it, will sooner or later be replaced by another radically
more sophisticated machine).
Ben:
I just want to note that there is no real distinction btw
continuous-variable models like this as typically used, and computable,
Turing-machine-type models.
For instance, biologists do detailed simulations of the continuous
variables underlying neural activity, on digital computers. And nonlinear
continuous-variable equations are normally solved using computational
algorithms.
In principle, the real number line contains uncomputable numbers. In
every single practical application, these are irrelevant, and one could ignore
them and use only a finite set of numbers instead.
I outlined the detailed reasons why this is the case, in a recent
blog post that was already discussed on this list,
http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.com/2008/10/are-uncomputable-entities-useless-for.html
-- Ben G
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This is interesting because it challenges the discrete, stepped,
Turing machine conception of thought with a continuous dynamics model. {If
anyone knows of more stuff along these lines, I'd be v. interested]. Here's a
pdf of Spivey's ideas.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary;jsessionid=5E238B3B3E62E2AF7151EF8B31599E4D?doi=10.1.1.92.3260
ICBS SEMINAR
Friday, November 7, 2008
11:am - 12:30 pm
5101 Tolman Hall
Michael Spivey, Department of Cognitive Science, UC Merced
"Continuous Temporal Dynamics in Real-time Cognition"
Rather than a sequence of logical operations performed on
discrete symbols, real-time cognition is better described as continuously
changing patterns of neuronal activity. The continuity in these dynamics
indicates that, in between describable states of mind, much of our mental
activity does not lend itself to the linguistic labels relied on by much of
psychology. I will discuss eye-tracking and computer-mouse-tracking evidence
for this temporal continuity in spoken word recognition, sentence
comprehension, categorization, and even decision-making. I will also provide
geometric visualizations of mental activity depicted as a continuous trajectory
through a neuronal state space. In this theoretical framework, close
visitations of labeled attractors may constitute word recognition events and
object recognition events, but the majority of the mental trajectory traverses
unlabeled regions of state space, resulting in multifarious mixtures of mental
states.
For more about ICBS: http://icbs.berkeley.edu/
---
Josephine O'Shaughnessy -Human Resources
Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute (HWNI)
3210F Tolman Hall MC 3192
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720
ph (510) 643-1274
fax: off-campus (510) 666-2593
fax: on-campus 6-2593
--------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give
orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch
manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give
orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch
manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a
wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization
is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
