Sorry. Let's try again. The link did not seem to come through for the cognitive science paper "Computation vs. information processing: why their difference matters to cognitive science <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiZj5GTzt_NAhUY82MKHTqlBxEQFgghMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.umsl.edu%2F~piccininig%2FComputation_vs_Information_Processing.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFl90aR_HXyTP2W9G2jK-yvrwKvNw&sig2=dp-Jj-FYpQn9fwPvCe-fLw> (2010)"
-R On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Robert Wall <wallrobe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Many would argue (eg Seth Llloyd >> http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020603/full/news020527-16.html) that >> *any* process that involves changes of state is computation. Can you name a >> "procedure for arriving at answers" that doesn't involve a series of >> processes that change state? > > > That pretty much covers it, Steven. Very concise. It does more > fundamentally ask the question, "Can all procedures be modeled as just > state machines?" > > So, back to an early thought of a Turing Machine, which is a very > simple--almost trivial--model of a computation, but this trivial device is > capable of any computation that can be performed by any other computing > device. > > [*Sidebar*: Is a medical procedure [protocol] as computation? The > objective is to get to an outcome that may not occur. There are steps. If > we were to automate this "operation" with a machine, then we could easily > think of this as a computational procedure. Yes?] > > > In the context of a *mathematical model of computation*, the other > missing piece here seems to be the *allowable *triggers or conditions > established for transitioning out of any particular state. That's the key > part of any algorithm especially for determining its complexity. Also, an > algorithm doesn't have to be guaranteed to finish (reach an* accept state*) > at an answer in order to be considered a procedure or algorithm, IMHO. For > example, nothing may guarantee that a *proper *condition will arise for > the procedure to transition to the next logical state. And, there are > algorithms > <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwip-OSS19_NAhUEKGMKHRCfAHgQFgg2MAY&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FP_versus_NP_problem&usg=AFQjCNFEKjY0JaPaecYPn3Mt3va-OIHmNg&sig2=Z1QceI9MitOs90CpLXYU9A&bvm=bv.126130881,d.cGc> > that cannot theoretically be determined to finish or stop. But that is > likely not in scope of addressing the original question: > > Nick writes: I guess what I was fishing for is some sort of exploration >> of the idea that >> *not all *procedures for arriving at answers are computations. > > > Okay--at the risk of just throwing a bit more confusion into the > mix--let's ask, "Is computation the same as information processing?" This > may just be a semantic argument but it is a point of departure for > cognitive scientists who make the distinction that the brain is not a > computer. See, for example, Computation vs. information processing: why > their difference matters to cognitive science (2010). It is an > interesting discussion in terms of the cognitive science concept of " > *computationalism*" that arises in discussions of strong generalized > artificial intelligence. > > Since the cognitive revolution, it has become commonplace that cognition >> involves both computation and information processing. Is this one claim or >> two? Is computation the same as information processing? >> The two terms are often used interchangeably, but this usage masks >> important differences. In this paper, we distinguish information processing >> from computation and examine some of their mutual relations, shed- >> ding light on the role each can play in a theory of cognition. We >> recommend that theorists of cognition be explicit and careful in choosing >> notions of computation and information and connecting them together. > > > Again, this may just be a semantic argument or outside the scope of Nick's > original query, though it is still interesting. > > Cheers, > > -R > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Stephen Guerin < > stephen.gue...@simtable.com> wrote: > >> Nick writes: >> > I guess what I was fishing for is some sort of exploration of the idea >> that not all procedures for arriving at answers are computations. >> >> Many would argue (eg Seth Llloyd >> http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020603/full/news020527-16.html) that >> *any* process that involves changes of state is computation. Can you name a >> "procedure for arriving at answers" that doesn't involve a series of >> processes that change state? >> >> -S >> >> _______________________________________________________________________ >> stephen.gue...@simtable.com <stephen.gue...@simtable.com> >> CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com >> 1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828 >> twitter: @simtable >> >>> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
