On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:15:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 31 January 2014 17:13, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> It isn't *essential. *Technically, I believe I/O can be added to a >>> computer programme as some sort of initial settings (for any given run of >>> the programme). >>> >> >> Added how though? By inputting code, yes? >> > > All code has to be input. That isn't input TO the programme, however, it's > setting up the programme before it is run. >
Right, but that's my point. Computationalism overolooks its own instantiation through input. It begins assuming that code is running. It begins with the assumption that coding methods exist. I am saying that those methods can only be sensory-motive, and that sensory-motive phenomena must precede the first possible instance of computation. > >> >>> Obviously this isn't much use in practice, of course! But from a >>> philosophical perspective it's possible, so it isn't ontologically >>> essential to the function of computation. >>> >>> A trivial example would be my son's Python programme to generate 2000 >>> digits of pi. It just uses some existing equation which generates each >>> digit in sequence. It happens to write the output to the screen, but if he >>> took out the relevant PRINT statement, it wouldn't - but it would still >>> compute the result. >>> >> >> The existing equation was input at some point though, and without the >> output, whether or not there was a computation is academic (and >> unfalsifiable). >> > > That wasn't the point. The question was whether I/O is ontologically > essential to the function of computation. Quite clearly, the answer is no. > The function of computation *can* exist without any I/O, so that answers > the question. > I disagree. I don't think that we know that. There is no possible case where computation without output is observed, so we cannot assume that computation is ontologically possible without output. We cannot assume that theoretical computation is free from the ontological constraints that real computation is subject to in our experience. > I was just answering your question honestly and as accurately as I could. > If you're going to change the question to something else when I attempt to > answer it, I won't bother in future. > You're answering it honestly, but you are assuming a universe in which sensory experience is theoretical and computation is actual. I am pointing out that this is a theoretical perspective. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
