On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:17:25 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Craig, > > On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:19:54 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:08:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> On 22 January 2014 15:04, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Computation is the nested, recursive enumeration of uniform symbolic >>>> bodies. The effectiveness of computation derives from its metaphorical >>>> application to material bodies, which can, through physical properties, be >>>> manipulated to deliver results which satisfy our expectations. >>>> >>> >>> Sorry to be dense but what *is* "the nested, recursive enumeration of >>> uniform symbolic bodies" ? >>> >> >> I think that it's a reflection of the Totality as seen from a >> hypothetical exterior. If you look at a crowd of people from a the top of a >> building, you can count them, you can count the number of times someone >> joins the crowd, you can count the rate that the crowd grows, you can count >> the rate that growth grows, etc. It's derivative abstraction that can be >> made useful in prediction and control of things that behave like crowds. If >> you want to know something about the individuals in the crowd, computation >> is much less relevant. You have to break them down into symbolic categories >> that act like uniform data objects...which they are not. >> > > Ah, how easy is it to mistake the Map for the Territory. >
For sure. They are almost equal...except that the Map both doesn't need a territory and is meaningless without one, whereas a territory has more meaning with maps but exists independently of them as well. Of course, in my view, the only true territory is sense experience itself. > > >> >> >>> >>>> Computation is not consciousness or sensation. It has no qualities of >>>> its own, and a computer would be just as happy producing Mandelbrot sets >>>> as >>>> noise, just as abacus beads are just as happy in a pattern that we might >>>> find meaningful versus one which seems random. >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure if you are trying to imply something about the nature of >>> the brain and consciousness here, or not. Presumably brain cells "would be >>> just as happy" recognising granny or solving equations - that is, brain >>> cells take in signals from other brain cells, and if the sum of these >>> exceeds some threshold, they send out a signal of their own. This seems >>> fairly similar to what NAND gates do inside a computer. (Or what the cogs >>> in a difference engine do, or the floating weights in the Olympia computer >>> do, etc.) >>> >>> So one could equally well say, "what brain cells do is not consciousness >>> or sensation". Yes presumably brain cells, when lumped together into a >>> brain, manage to *produce* consciousness and sensation, and apparently >>> they do this through a process that is at least somewhat similar to what >>> the logic gates inside computers do. >>> >>> So, to clarify, are you claiming that consciousness *cannot be produced >>> by* computation, or just making the observation that the process of >>> computation is not the same thing as consciousness or sensation, much as my >>> brain isn't the same thing as my thoughts? >>> >>> -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
