OK. Last one! Please replace 2) with: 2. Science says that the information from the retina is insufficient to construct a visual scene.
Whether or not that 'constuct' arises from computation is a matter of semantics. I would say that it could be considered computation - natural computation by electrodynamic manipulation of natural symbols. Not abstractions of the kind we manipulate in the COMP circumstance. That is why I use the term COMP... It's rather funny: you could redefine computation to include natural computation (through the natural causality that is electrodynamics as it happens in brain material). Then you could claim computationalism to be true. But you'd still behave the same: you'd be unable to get AGI from a Turing machine. So you'd flush all traditional computers and make new technology.... Computationalism would then be true but 100% useless as a design decision mechanism. Frankly I'd rather make AGI that works than be right according to a definition! The lesson is that there's no pracitcal use in being right according to a definition! What you need to be able to do is make successful choices. OK. Enough. A very enjoyable but sticky thread...I gotta work! cheers all for now. regards Colin Abram Demski wrote:
Colin, I believe you did not reply to my points? Based on your definition of computationalism, it appears that my criticism of your argument does apply after all. To restate: Your argument appears to assume computationalism. Here is a numbered restatement: 1. We have a visual experience of the world. 2. Science says that the information from the retina is insufficient to compute one. 3. Therefore, we must get more information. 4. The only possible sources are material and spatial. 5. Material is already known to be insufficient, therefore we must also get spatial info. Computationalism is assumed to get from #2 to #3. If we do not assume computationalism, then the argument would look more like this: 1. We have a visual experience of the world. 2. Science says that the information from the retina is insufficient to compute one. 3. Therefore, our visual experience is not computed. This is obviously unsatisfying because it doesn't say where the visual scene comes from; answers range from prescience to quantum hypercomputation, but that does not seem important to the current issue. --Abram ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
