Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation

From: JXStern (JXSternChangeX2R_at_gte.net)
Date: 11/28/04 

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:25:19 GMT

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:05:57 +0000 (UTC), Neil W Rickert
<rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>I don't agree with the view that words are abstract. Doubtless, we
>we not agree much at all on our views of language.

There are whole discussions here.

>>Abtraction may be (or may seem to be) a property of some entities,
>>like concepts or propositions, but the subject of those entities may
>>still be required to be physical and particular
>
>I have trouble making sense of that. Why does an entity need a
>subject? If the number three is an abstract entity, what is its
>subject?

The marks that constitute the word "cow" are an entity, but if there
is no relationship between the marks and some distal
subject/object/whatever, then we're nowhere. On the other hand, your
question is fair, and it may be a result, and not a fair assumption,
that a (linguistic, symbolic, cognitive, sub-) entity needs a subject.

>Several years back I spent some time reading Hartry Field's "Science
>Without Numbers". I'm still not sure what was the point.

I glanced at it at some point, I think. Whatever the point, I'm
pretty sure it's nothing I want to support, or if there was some
overlap with what I believe, it was at least not the way I'd want to
state it.

>It seems to me that nominalism is an example of the cure for which
>there is no disease.

It seems to me that nominalism is what we do when we do computation
with modern programming and digital electronic computers. I'm not
sure computers cure any disease, but they are useful nonetheless and
in need of some explication to make them more useful yet.

J.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation
    ... >we not agree much at all on our views of language. ... The marks that constitute the word "cow" are an entity, ... >there is no disease. ... with modern programming and digital electronic computers. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
    ... Because human are smarter than computers. ... Why can optimizing C compilers make more efficient code than the best human assembly language programmers? ... That's even better than Python ... protection module from their Python installations. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Why is OO Popular?
    ... In most domains there are many abstractions, ... > that computers behave like other computers. ... surely just as solid a basis for design, ... since this implies that language has no impact on ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: How much intelligence?
    ... Imagine a native English speaker who knows no Chinese locked in a room ... In what language are the instructions written? ... trying to emulate AI directly by means of TvN mechanics. ... saying we can't model actual intelligence artificially with computers ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: How much intelligence?
    ... Imagine a native English speaker who knows no Chinese locked in a room ... In what language are the instructions written? ... trying to emulate AI directly by means of TvN mechanics. ... saying we can't model actual intelligence artificially with computers ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)