On 1 February 2014 17:30, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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? > Your original question was: Can we all agree that the notion of input and output is ontologically > essential to the function of computation? Is there any instance in which a > computation is employed in which no program or data is input and from which > no data is expected as output? I answered that. I gave an example. You didn't ask what good it was, you asked if it's ontologically essential. And it isn't, computation can proceed happily without I/O. You asked if I/O is ontologically essential to computation and I answered, no, and gave a load of examples that showed why it isn't. If you want to ask what good computation is without I/O that's fine, go ahead. But that wasn't the question you asked and I answered, or the question you have gone to such extraordinary lengths to object to my answers to. Anyway I won't make the mistake of trying to give you an honest answer, or any answer, if all you can do is bleat about how "square" it is to try to hold a meaningful discussion. Since you've clearly already decided that you're right, and are happy to twist everything round endlessly to prove it, at least to yourself, you may as well shout in a bucket. -- 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.
