Thank you Colin, that reply is completely satisfying! In fact, ignore the email I just sent off-list. (Still not convinced that COMP is definitely false, but I see how it could be, if you don't want to count quantum computers as computers, and think the brain harnesses quantum computation.)
For those watching, a correction is in order: Colin replied to my argument off-list, but I did not notice and re-posted after Colin's big long on-list reply to everyone else. So, Colin wasn't actually ignoring me when I thought he was... :) --Abram On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/?&; > 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
