On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 10:27:00 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Nov 2018, at 18:50, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:32:53 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 24 Nov 2018, at 17:27, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Turing explained how matter can behave intelligently, >> >> >> No. He showed how a person can be attached to a computation, and also >> that physics is Turing complete, so that we can use matter to implement >> computations, like nature plausibly does. But it is not matter which behave >> intelligently: it is the person associated to the computation, and it >> behaves as well relatively to numbers than to matter. You use of matter is >> “magical”. >> >> >> > If humans are matter (meaning of course that human brains are matter), > then *humans behave intelligently* means that (at least some) *matter > behaves intelligently*. > > > Like with a computer: some arrangement of some matter can emulate a > (universal) computation. That means that the physical laws are Turing > complete. > > It does not mean that primary matter exists (see my reminding of what this > means in my answer to Brent, soon enough!). > > > > > > It is not clear that Turing in his last ("morphogenesis") years thought > that the Turing machine was a complete definition of computing in nature. > > > > If mechanism is true, in principle, nature has more powerful processing > ability than any computer. Now, it could mean only that nature use a random > oracle, which would come only from our ignorance about which computations > run us, if I may say. > > Bruno > > > >
Going by something Barry Cooper wrote *The intuition is that computational unconventionality certainly entails higher-type computation, with a correspondingly enhanced respect for embodied information. There is some understanding of the algorithmic content of descriptions. But so far we have merely scratched the surface.* "natural computing" may involve something that is non-Turing in a sense that doesn't involve actual oracles in the hyperarithmetical processing sense (but could involve topology: *We can say that topology is precisely about the relation between finiteness and infiniteness that is relevant to computation.* [ http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mhe/papers/introduction-to-higher-order-computation-NLS-2017.pdf ]). I posit that *experience processing* is a "natural computing" that is non-Turing. This new article may be of interest: "there are now many signs that consciousness-like phenomena might exist not just among humans or even great apes – but that insects might have them, too" ] https://aeon.co/essays/inside-the-mind-of-a-bee-is-a-hive-of-sensory-activity ] - pt -- 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.
