RE: What Computationalism is and what it is *not*

From: Lee Corbin <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 23:32:28 -0700

John writes

> Eliza was part of a model: responsive to effects
> within 'her' program. Within the rules of (possible in
> 1990 or whatever level)the model of 'physics' with
> phenomena, forces, events that far discovered.
> Whatever 'she' was receptive to. Beyond that 'she'
> can't act, as a limited model, disregarding whatever
> is missing for the program for receptiveness - outside
> her boundaries. So while you may consider the side of
> response 'open' the functioning domain in conditioning
> is modeled.

Yes, but so are we (as you next say):

> Speaking about "us" and our (open to evolution) >DNA<:
> brings up the thought that "we" are also models cut
> and limited by program potentials of our DNA - not
> free to 'nature as a total'. That makes us a 'species'
> and cuts
> our evolution to 'within' the species model. We do not
> grow gears and wings to fly. Or gills. Or magnetic
> resonance receptors.

Nor is it possible for you to say or do something
uncaused. Every thought that you have exists for a
reason: you are a machine and in that sense obey
the laws of physics just as a computer program
obeys its instructions.

Nature crafts an animal as an hypothesis about what
is "the right thing to do to survive". That's why
bears have their nature, and people have theirs.
As people, we are far more "open" to altering our
behavior in response to memes; bears, on the other
hand, require much more extensive training to alter
their bag of tricks.

But we too, of course, are still limited, as is any
physical device. Will we ever invent a perfect learning
machine? It seems doubtful; a very good new book "What
is Thought?" by Eric Baum discusses the idea that our
DNA is immensely compact code that reflects a lot of
realities in our evolution and realities about life on
Earth, and---presumably---realities about life anywhere,
where mathematics, say, is of great use.

Lee
 
> We are not so open either to
> every (possible? or even impossible) effect to
> respond....
> [Maybe I have to reconsider AI (and also AL?) as the
> way to imitate the 'model human'??? even 'bio-life'???
Received on Fri Sep 09 2005 - 02:32:36 PDT