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
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to