[Wittrs] Re: Following a Rule
- From: Rob de Villiers <robbitgrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:20:12 -0400
Josh,
concerning:
> When I have a sufficient explanation of computation,
> I'll let you know what I think about whether cognition
> is computation.
What more do you need by way of an explanation
of computation (as done by computers) than what you already
have courtesy of the the theory of Turing Machines, General
Recursive Functions etc., and the mechanics of solid state
devices, etc... ?? What remains mysterious, unexplained?
How they "really" work? What is "really" "going on"?
Well what is that to an avowed nominalist? ...rather
than a Platonist!
(What more do you need by way of an explanation of how
motorbikes work than Newtonian mechanics, and a bit
rudimentary chemistry, electrics and materials science?
A GUT from Murray Gell-Mann?)
Or is it just that computers throw you into
conceptual confusion? ... because you feel
they must explain "something more" and insist on
trying to derive your understanding of that
something and everything else related to rules
and normativity from these machines? Because
some of us talk as if they follow rules
and engage in normative and sentient activities?
Children talk about their dolls as being happy,
sad, hungry, etc ... we talk about our cars
as refusing to start or trying to get
up hills, etc... Do we need to explain happines,
stubbornness, striving... by reference to dolls
or motor cars?
--
Rob
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:
