On 28 Dec 2017, at 04:26, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> Computationalism is the idea that the brain is an
information processing system and that a computer can
perform all the complex behaviors that would be called intelligent
if it were done by a human;
> That is not computationalism. That is the weak AI thesis.
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind
"A computational theory of mind names a view that the human
mind or the human brain (or both) is an information processing
system and that thinking is a form of computing."
Well, that is less precise than the indexical version, as some people
distinguish "thinking" and consciousness. Some even agree that
classical teleportation is possible, but that it is equivalent with
death.
Information processing is ambiguous too, as it can relies, or not, on
Church thesis. In general it does rely on it making this equivalent
with our use of computationalism. Information processing is ambiguous,
but with Church's thesis, we can prove their existence in elementary
arithmetic, and the concept does not require any invocation of some
Deity or Metaphysical Realm (be it a material universe or a god).
And from:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/
"Advances in computing raise the prospect that the mind itself
is a computational system—a position known as the computational
theory of mind (CTM). Computationalists are researchers who endorse
CTM,"
Yes. I got is a long time ago from my reading of books in molecular
biology. Then I discovered in Gödel's technic of self-reference that
this extraordinary trick made by bacteria was already done in the
arithmetical relations.
So no problem with this.
>> computationalism does NOT insist that everything is
information processing
> Actually, computationalism implies it,
The human mind can not perfectly predict what all physical systems
will do,
The universal machine lives at the border between computable and non
computable. the universal machine themselves are necessarily only
partial computable, and uncontrollable.
So no problem with this either. On the contrary, it is still possible
that mechanism implies a much less predictable physics, given that it
becomes a statistics on infinitely many histories.
but computationalism could still be true and work by information
processing even if some some physical systems do not.
> (but you need to grasp UDA step 3
I've looked at the UDA website:
https://uda.varsity.com/Competitions/National-Dance-Team-
Championship
And I can find several references to step 3 as might be expected
in a website about dancing but nothing that seems very relevant to
the subject at hand.
Bad jokes don't replace arguments.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
