--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote: > > > --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "jrstern" <jrstern@> wrote: > > > > Sure, but gentlemen, might it be an easier question > > to ask what it means to say, "my computer is computing"? > > Let's see if I can get close to that issue. > > It's election day. And there is this thingy called a "voting > machine". I am supposed to press some buttons on that thingy > (manufactured by Diebold). > > Is that thingy a computer, and is what it does computing? Or is > that thingy an inscrutable magic black box which, through means > unknown, announces an "election winner"? > > Can we say that an alleged computer is following rules, if the > rules are inscrutable, and there is no way of auditing whether the > announced "election winner" actually corresponds to any agreed > following of rules? Apparently you've kept yourself far away from the issue. Let's start with something where you feel happy stipulating to the fact that it is a computer. > > I know Neil, at least, has expressed some interest in > > whether it has a clock driving it - and presumably additional > > electrical power, in the kinds of actual chips that we use. > > But that has to do with a very different issue, such as "can a > computer have original intentionality". It seems not relevant to > the current discussion. Can a computer have original intentionality, without computing? Josh WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4 TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf 3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz 1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/ FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009