On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:26:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 17:30, Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:> > > 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. >
They are the same thing. In a Computationalist (or Digital Functionalist) universe, the phenomenon of consciousness is reduced to a computational function based on the idea that function is ontologically supreme. If you have phenomena popping up out of nowhere without any function, then we must ask why we are picking on consciousness. By asserting that input/output is ontologically essential to the function of computing, I am saying that there is no functional reason why computation would emerge unless it produces something new, and I'm saying that production essentially entails what we think of as input and output: some kind of formal partitioning of a function and a sending-receiving of computational products from that partition. Without the sending-receiving, you have a Platonic Block that makes sending-receiving redundant. There does not seem to be any functional purpose for computation within a Platonic Block, since every possible UD coordinate is already "there". > And it isn't, computation can proceed happily without I/O. > Empirically, in the machines that we create, given our distance from the experience of those machines, but I'm talking about as a theory of the universe - if computation can proceed without I/O, then of course it would, and I/O would be impossible. Since we know in our own experience that I/O is the only reason to ever compute anything, we cannot assume that there can be any such thing as "computation" in a universe that lacks I/O (sensory-motive participation). That is what I meant by ontologically essential. Not essential locally, but essential on the eternal, existential level. > > 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. > Because you are looking at computation from within a computer science perspective. I'm looking at it from a foundational perspective. > 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. > >From my perspective, that sounds like "I didn't really consider your question thoroughly the first time, so my answer was superficial, and now I'm angry, so I'm putting my fingers in my ears and blaming you". -- 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.
