On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, Joseph Knight <joseph.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring some
> > astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for Craig
> > to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make
> useful
> > progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?
>
> What is it that you think I don't understand about COMP?


Let's start with the basics. I know that you don't understand what a
computer is, since you claim a bit later that it is a "humming box". In an
earlier post you said 'computers are arrays of semiconductor materials
arranged to conduct electrical current in a dynamic and orderly fashion'.
Wrong. When I directed you to an article explaining why you are wrong, you
replied "you're pointing me to references to Boolean algebra". Boolean
algebra was not mentioned even once on the page! You didn't read it!
Laziness.


> The problem
> is that I know for a fact that you don't understand my view


I don't think anyone on this list understands your view, except perhaps
yourself. Who is to blame?


> , and there
> is nothing anyone has said here which surprises me in any way about
> comp. It's all old hat to me, even if it seems exciting and fresh to
> you, I have been thinking about neurological simulations using
> computation for probably 35 years. I have drawings of multi-sensory
> Walkman designs from when I was 12.


Cool.


>


> What is the big amazing thing about comp? Arithmetic truth? UDA?
> Substitution level? Self-reference and Turing Machines?


Among other things.


> I understand
> that you think it makes sense because computers can seem to simulate
> so many things,


They certainly can simulate many things. However, I have seen you conflate
simulations run by scientists working with simplified models of something,
with the kind of simulation that matters when we talk about the
computational theory of mind.


> including computers, but that doesn't impress me
> because I understand that computers are only computers because users
> are using them that way.


Ludicrous, and this only reinforces my suspicion that you have no idea what
a "computer", conceived mathematically, actually is.


> Otherwise they are just humming boxes.
>

See above.


>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
Joseph Knight

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to