On Jan 31, 4:40 pm, Joseph Knight <joseph.9...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > When someone tells you you are wrong, you are not interested in seeing if > they are correct? Laziness, or worse, trolling. Convince me otherwise.
Only if I am unsure of why they think I am wrong. I'm not here to prove that I am right, I am here to learn if there is something that I haven't considered and to share my ideas. Nothing you have said is new to me. I have been debating this for several years now. > > > 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. > > In that context, and indeed essentially all contexts on this list, the > precise definition was the one being employed. > > > This kind of semantic nitpicking is > > the lowest form of argumentative desperation. > > No, we need to know exactly what each other means when they use a word if > we are to make any progress. So there's a problem when you use one word to > refer to two quite different things. I am all for clarity. The problem is that I reject this definition of computer from the start. It is a hypothetical idea...a good one, but nothing to do with reality directly. In the real world, all computers will always have a physical substrate or at least a physical interface. > > > > > > > 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, > > I certainly have tried, and failed, repeatedly. I haven't personally > inquired about it because others have, and you have been less than helpful > for them. You invent dozens of new terms, abuse the meanings of dozens of > commonly used terms from science and philosophy....I don't see any concrete > predictions about the result of an experiment, any falsifiability, or any > concern for precision. How else is one supposed to go about redefining the cosmos? > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > Hold on -- you are purposefully causing confusion in order to strip away > confusion? I'm not causing confusion. When I bring up that a trashcan that says THANK YOU on the lid is not really being polite, I intend that someone could see how that simple principle scales up to complex digital simulation not being really conscious. > > > > > > 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. > > I never asserted anything. > > > 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. > > Arrogance will not get you, or "multisense realism", anywhere. Where do you think I want to get? > If you lay > out for me your theory and assumptions, in language I can understand > ("telesemantic entanglement" won't cut it) What would you prefer I call it? If a police car gets on the freeway and everyone suddenly slows down, what is that called? That's what electromagnetism is. Cars changing how they drive because the driver makes sense of something. The police car is not smacking into traffic and mechanically causing a slowdown, there is mutual entanglement of meaning between all of the cars. >, if you stop using words *you *don't > understand, if you offer some predictions and/or potential falsification > for your theory, if you stop acting like a victim, I will be all ears. I don't care if you understand though. I mean I'm happy to oblige if you are interested, but I'm not here for your edification. > Otherwise, you are wasting my time and I won't be responding anymore. Have you considered that it's you who is wasting my time as well? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.