On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:03:14 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 10:52, Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:> > > wrote: > >> 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. >>>> >>> >>> I doubt J.A.W. would have accepted that as a valid crit of "It from Bit" >>> and I can't see that it's valid for comp either (or even Edgar's >>> whatever-the-hell-it-is). If brains compute, they presumably start by >>> boostrapping themselves, and only later get programmed by input from the >>> outside world. >>> >> >> When did the world become 'outside' though? If you bootstrap from >> immaterial Platonia that has no outside, how and why do numbers acquire >> non-numerical dimensionality? >> > > Standard usage. The world is outside the brain. >
Comp isn't standard usage though. With Comp the brain is an appearance within a program (whatever an "appearance" is). > >> >>> Likewise one can imagine a self-assembling computer. This is simply >>> *incidental* to how humans get computation done - like I/O, it isn't >>> ontologically fundamental. >>> >> >> I think that it is meta-ontologically fundamental. Comp just ignores the >> question of I/O because it is too superficial of a treatment of reality to >> examine it. >> > > So now it's meta-ontologically fundamental. Please make your mind up what > question you're asking. > My mind has always been made up. Fundamental to mean means absolutely fundamental. I use ontological or meta-ontological only to emphasize that I am not allowing any neat theoretical boxes that Comp can make for itself to hide in. > >> >>> Computation without any output can be observed by examining the >>> machinery involved, if necessary. But I bet you'll just redefine output to >>> mean whatever the hell you want it to, just as you got around an honest >>> attempt to show a flaw in your argument with a ridiculous comment about >>> computation being academic without any output, as though a programme that >>> hangs in an infinite loop without producing output is somehow not computing, >>> >> >> It's not that it isn't computing, it is that it is impossible for it to >> matter whether it is computing or not. Computing is irrelevant to us >> without i/o, so why should we expect that it is any more relevant to >> itself? I missed the honest attempt to show a flaw in my argument though - >> which flaw is that? >> > > The fact that I/O isn't ontologically fundamental to computation, that is > to say, computation can proceed without I/O. I mentioned that it proceeds > without I/O in various ways. > It can only proceed if it begins. How can it begin without input? Not just how can the program begin to execute code, but how can "code" appear in the universe? > >> >>> as is a programme that runs in the background - the "magic" is supposed >>> to happen at the moment of output? >>> >> >> It's not magic, it's sensory experience. That which makes anything matter. >> > > This is the sort of ontological assumption you should have stated up > front. > I think its an ontological assumption that nature makes, not me. > >> >>> A programme that runs for 100 days factoring a huge number "didn't do >>> anything" even though it racked up a massive power bill and used 99% of the >>> CPU time and 95% of the memory if the plug gets pulled just before it gives >>> its output? Sorry, but this is just nonsense. >>> >> >> It's doing something, but what it is doing is completely worthless. There >> is no functional difference between what it is doing and just spinning hard >> drives. >> > > OK, if that's going to be your view then fine. I will stop here because I > don't think you're being honest and sticking to the original question, > which I answered as well as I could. There is nothing fundamentally > important about I/O to computation (unless you are committed to a certain > set of assumptions which make it inevitable that there is, regardless of > what anyone else says). > It's not an assumption, it is a question. I am asking, what good is computation without input/output and isn't the fact of i/o completely overlooked in the ontology of computationalism. Given that, isn't it more likely that computationalism is false? > > Sorry but if you won't be honest or stick to the original point or accept > that people trying to discuss something will use a set of normal > assumptions about reality, I can't discuss it, because whatever I say, you > will just change the rules. > I haven't changed anything. "Normal assumptions" are for squares. What is the point of talking about something normal unless someone is paying you for it? -- 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.
