[Wittrs] Re: Following a Rule
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:09:04 -0700
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:00 PM, iro3isdx <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "jrstern" <jrstern@...> wrote:
>
>
>> When I have a sufficient explanation of computation, I'll
>> let you know what I think about whether cognition is computation.
>
> We don't need to be precise about what computation is. It should
> suffice to be precise about what computationalism is. And, in my
> opinion, that is up to the computationalists.
>
Any ism or ist should be defined in cahoots with some auditing body
i.e. a devil's advocate skeptic. Yes, the Catholics figured this out
a ways back, though that hasn't prevented Wall Street style melt downs
sometimes (you get greedy out of control priests, not just investment
bankers).
So who watch dogs the computationalists. In the case of AI, we have
lots of auditors these days. The dot com bust also left a lot of
newly vigilant investors wanting to do it right next time, i.e. not
fall for silly pyramid schemes or Nigerian banker scams.
Actually, I think the Wittgenstein-trained provide a kind of auditing
function sometimes, given their propensity to not be snowed by
obfuscationalists.
In traditional (classical) philosophy, one reason they stressed logic
is they wanted to measure one's level of focused concentration when
doing something nit-picky. Computer programming somewhat replaces the
logic, but not the relevance of such measures. Philosophy continues
to test its practitioners. Richard Stallman for example.
Kirby
> Regards,
> Neil
>
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
Other related posts:
