Quote:
Originally Posted by dissonance
So, sure, humans are better at certain things than computers (a lot of things actually). That's right now, though.
I'm not saying any of this is "fact". I'm just saying its the interpretation that makes by far the most sense given the information we do have.
|
I actually agree with you in terms of what I believe. I'm just saying that the other side is not that far-fetched or irrational, and that there are valid well thought reasons for holding the vew-point that humans are computers.
The reason the following argument:
P1) Everything is computation
P2) The mind is something, and therefore part of everything
---------------------------------------------------------
C) Therefore the mind is computation
is unconvincing is because P1) will not be accpeted in general.
IME, most people believe who disbelieve C) also disbelieve P1) without ever even being presented the argument above (which I believe, is the one you are making).
If you take P1) as a
definition, then you are commiting the error of equivocation between what they believe is computation, and what you believe to be computation. If you use your definition, your conclusion is obvious, but meaningless.
That is why I was trying to shift the debate to "What is computation?"
It is a very reasonable thing to define computation any output of human
desing.
This is still a fairly borad meaning of a "computer." Any machine, process, or method designed by humans will then be a "computer."
Then the question is:
"Will the human mind be reproducable by human
design alone?"
This is where the central dispute is. I frankly do believe it can be, but I don't believe certainty in this is warranted.
People have been predicting "the next decade" for this to happen for a while, each time, we surprass a certain threshold (certain algorithms being found, number of transistors in a single processor, the number of interconnected computers, etc.) for when the human mind is essentially reduced to computation. Each time we get "closer," the goal-posts seem to have moved further away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissonance
Then how do interactions between cells do it? It can't be incomputable, because it's already been done.
And it's not like there were ever any "intuitive leaps" in humans' programming. Think of it this way -- the earth has solved the problem of creating consciousness. The earth is just a piece of matter. The problem has been solved before -- we know it is solvable.
|
Note the comment on equivication above. The central question is whether we can figure out how to create human reasoning, not whether or not human reasoning exists (we know it does).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissonance
I see what you're saying. I just think that interpretation fits less data than mine. Sorry I can't really go point by point on this one.
(Honestly, how could it be impossible to create a human reasoning system when it's already been done???)
|
I really hope you understand the point I was making about equivocation.
Equivocation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think what happens is as we discover more and more ways to replicate what the human mind does through automations, the more we discover what the mind is NOT.
I think there is powerful "pincer" argument on the very notion of "design." which leads to a lot of interesting things to think about--it brings us back to the question of free-will vs. determinism, but in a very unique way.
As it stands, a good deal of the thread has been very vocal versions of "Everything is computation," and "No, not everything is computation." Both are highly subjective views based on
definitions that we implicitly hold.
Note: not every body believes the following either:
1) Everything is matter or Energy.
2) Everything is knowable.
People hold strong beliefs about these things, but I don't believe there are conclusive arguments for or against 1). I believe there are very strong arguments against 2).