Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
stephen_at_nomail.com
Date: 03/04/05
- Next message: Robert B. Israel: "Re: f is constant?"
- Previous message: Ritesh: "Newton's identitires and reed solomon decoding"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 4 Mar 2005 04:54:10 GMT
In sci.math robert j. kolker <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:
: stephen@nomail.com wrote:
:> of rocks or balls or whatever. If I observe a rock or ball
:> and determine where it will land, and move towards (or away)
:> from where it will land, am I making a calculation or not?
: You are. The ballistic missle is not. I point out that the natural
: product of the brains activity (a purely physical process) is thought.
: Does that mean thought is computation. If so then the course a thrown
: rock follows is computation even if it is belched from the belly of a
: vulcano which is inanimate.
Well, you earlier seemed to be claiming that athletes were not making
computations when they determined where a ball would be.
: The original issue is whether what the brain is doing is computation. It
: is not clear that it is. The brain is a wet gooey organ, not a computer.
: Computers are dry and inorganic. Brains are wet and very organic.
: Computers work one way. Brains work another. There is not an
: identifiable binary component in the brain.
That seems like a rather restrictive definition of computation.
Who says that computation must involve binary? If I "compute" 389*92
with pencil and paper, am I not performing a computation? Why
does 389*92 become a computation if a computer performs it? Fact is,
the word "computer" used to refer to people who were hired to perform
calculations.
Stephen
- Next message: Robert B. Israel: "Re: f is constant?"
- Previous message: Ritesh: "Newton's identitires and reed solomon decoding"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|