On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 10:27:00 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Nov 2018, at 18:50, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <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 <johnk...@gmail.com> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
