[Wittrs] Re: Following a Rule

  • From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:44:38 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Rob de Villiers <wittrs@...> wrote:
> > 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... ??

Not much, really.

Just life, the universe, and everything.

You can probably browse back on my messages in
just this forum for more, but let me answer by asking
instead.

What do you think of the relationship of Turing
and Wittgenstein?  Do you see any basis in Wittgenstein
for Turing's writings, and do you think Wittgenstein was
right in his reactions, in RFM and PI, towards Turing
and rules in general?

What do you think of Searle's distinction between
weak and strong AI, and his Wordstar parable - are
his arguments coherent, correct, and what would be
needed to change the conclusions?  Or if we accept
his conclusions, what further does that imply about
computation?

and for good luck,

What do you think of Dennett's theory of intentionality
as a stance?

--

I'll tell you what, let's combine these into a Wittgenstein-
specific synthesis.

How is it, in Wittgensteinian terms, that we seem to find
a computer is a useful object?

(Now, apparently a perfectly acceptable orthodox Wittgensteinian
response is to say, "oh, it has the right grammar!", but that
falls prey to the Wordstar argument - doesn't it?)

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

Other related posts: