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

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 06:36:00 -0700 (PDT)

Lee, thanks for telling me what I am (and you are), It
will be very advantageous in the essay I am working on
to tackle with "ourswelves as models" (in my terms). I
promise to make use of your formulation (maybe with
credit to you).

John M

--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden> wrote:

> 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 - 09:40:26 PDT