But why is serialization different from any other monist tendency? Serialization is a reduction to the uni-dimensional *sequence*, whereas parallel implies pluralism, anything > 1 dimension. It would be inconsistent of you to allow for parallelism and retain your monism. So, to me, you're better off sticking with a sequential conception.
And don't forget, as we've discussed before, any output a parallel machine can produce can be "simulated" by a sequential machine. So, again, monism is moot. Yes, it may well be True in some metaphysical sense. But if it walks like a pluralist and quacks like a pluralist ... well, then it's a pluralist. Unification is only useful in so far as it *facilitates* multiplication, i.e. demonstrates constructively how we get many things from few things. If you can't show your work, then you don't understand the problem (or you haven't read the instructions 8^). On 12/3/19 2:08 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Now, there is a a hidden assumption in my monism which I would think you > computer folks would be all over me about. I am thinking of consciousness as > serial, rather than parallel. Where do I stand to assert that what ever else > can be said about experience, it comes down to a series of single, > instantaneous points from which all the varieties and forms of experience – > objects and fantasies, etc. – are constructed. This is where ProfDave has > me, because there is no more reason to believe on the basis of looking at the > brain that it has a single point of convergence, a choke point in its > processing, than to believe the same of the kidneys. Kidneys can make urine > and clean the blood at the same time. This is why I wish I understood the > Turing Model better, because I intuit that the computers we use are based on > just this seriel fallacy. Now, I suppose behavior provides something like a > choke point. We either walk to the supermarket or we drive. But we may do a > dozen > different things on our way to the supermarket, whether or not we walk and > drive. We can listen to a pod cast, we can plan our summer vacation, we can > muse about which tuxedo we will wear for our Nobel Address. And if we don’t, > as I suspect Frank and Bruce will want us to, artificially separate these > musements from the circumstances that occasion them and the actions they > ultimately occasion, we will see that the myth of the choke point (the > fallacy of the turing machine model?) is contradicted by the fact that we can > do and do do many things at once all the time. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
