Here then is simpler and more familiar example of how computation can
differ from natural understanding which is not susceptible to any
mereological Systems argument.
If any of you have use passwords which are based on a pattern of keystrokes
rather than the letters on the keys, you know that you can enter your
password every day without ever knowing what it is you are typing
(something with a #r5f^ in it…?).
I think this is a good analogy for machine intelligence. By storing and
copying procedures, a pseudo-semantic analysis can be performed, but it is
an instrumental logic that has no way to access the letters of the ‘human
keyboard’. The universal machine’s keyboard is blank and consists only of
theoretical x,y coordinates where keys would be. No matter how good or
sophisticated the machine is, it will still have no way to understand what
the particular keystrokes "mean" to a person, only how they fit in with
whatever set of fixed possibilities has been defined.
Taking the analogy further, the human keyboard only applies to public
communication. Privately, we have no keys to strike, and entire paragraphs
or books can be represented by a single thought. Unlike computers, we do
not have to build our ideas up from syntactic digits. Instead the
public-facing computation follows from the experienced sense of what is to
be communicated in general, from the top down, and the inside out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.