On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, Joseph Knight <joseph.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Not laziness. I'm just not in the business of doing errands for
strangers on the internet. I'm not your student. I understand that the
term computer *can* apply to anything that can be used to perform
computation (I use the abacus as an example too, steam powered
machines, whatever). Obviously from my wording I am talking about
contemporary electronic computers. This kind of semantic nitpicking is
the lowest form of argumentative desperation.

> > 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?

You can blame me if you want, but it makes no difference. You can
either try to understand what I mean or not, that's fine, but you
aren't telling me anything I don't already know so I'm not curious
about your views.

> > , 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,

I'm doing that intentionally to strip away the confusion and think
about it in a clearer, more truthful way.

> 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.

It sounds like you are asserting some special case definition of the
word computer. A computer is anything that can be used to compute. It
doesn't have to be a material object, in theory, I understand that. In
practice though *all* known computation eventually has a physical
layer, even if it's neurological. If I make a virtual server (and I am
a network engineer MCSE, CCEA btw) it still runs on a real hardware
node as if it were a real server. There is no virtualization without
physics underwriting it. I understand that what I say on this subject
is provocative and doesn't make sense to you. That's because you are
only focused on my being wrong and fail to give my ideas the slightest
unbiased consideration. It doesn't mean you're a jerk, it just means
you are typical. I'm not interested in typical though.

> > Otherwise they are just humming boxes.
> See above.

Yeah, I know. I'm a big moron because I used the word computer to
refer to computers and not the mathematically defined theoretical
conception of computation.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to