--- 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