[ExI] Meaningless Symbols.

Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com
Fri Jan 15 00:59:14 UTC 2010


2010/1/15 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:
> --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You've said that formal programs can't produce
>> understanding but physical activity can produce understanding.
>> Computers not only run formal programs, they also do physical activity.
>> You have a hunch that the sort of physical activity in computers is
>> incapable of producing understanding. But a hunch is not good enough in a
>> philosophical argument.
>
> I don't consider it a "hunch". I look at programs (and I write them) and I look at the hardware that implements them (and I work on that too) and I see only syntactical form-based operations. And I understand and agree with those who say syntax cannot give semantics, that grammar cannot give vocabulary.
>
> It's last point on which we disagree. You want to believe that performing form-based syntactic operations in software or hardware will magically give rise to human-like understanding.

I look at minds and I look at the hardware that implements them, and
all I see is neurons firing according to mindless rules. I can't say
it's obvious to me how this leads to either intelligence or
consciousness. The code the brain uses to represent objects in the
real world and concepts is much less well understood than the code
computers use, but it is a code, and ultimately all codes are
arbitrary. Presumably for the brain you don't believe the code or the
algorithm implemented by neural networks firing gives rise to
understanding, but rather something intrinsic to the matter or the way
the matter behaves. So how are computers disadvantaged here? They too
use a code and implement algorithms, and they too contain matter
engaged in physical activity.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list