5 ms·

Thinking is already computation. Computational is redundant. We just need to incorporate what we've begun to understand through computer science into our own c

by unabst 10y ago

Thinking is already computation. Computational is redundant. We just need to incorporate what we've begun to understand through computer science into our own common sense. This is the correct approach, except, it is the only approach and is and will happen anyway. It happened as we better understood objectivity and subjectivity, as we understood mathematics and logic, and as we understood science and factuality. With computers, it's abstractions and execution of languages, expressions of logic, etc. The beauty of it is it's more relevant to how we compute, so it's like understanding how we understand. And that's the field of AI. Give kids a computer and things to build, and they will naturally learn from the experience. No need to bring up the term thinking, or science, or even computers. We think, we learn, we understand. Saying we need to somehow do these things is redundant. Encouraging more open source open hardware computers in classrooms is what we need to be doing.

the_af 10y ago
> Thinking is already computation. Computational is redundant. I don't think this is obviously true. At least superficially it isn't: the human brain doesn't work like a formal system, as far as we know. Most definitions of computational thinking I've read do not equate it to thinking.
- unabst 10y ago
  But I think we're getting there. To say the brain doesn't work like a formal system and to say how the brain works cannot be formalized are two distinct statements. Natural language may not be a formal language, but the process of building natural language systems is that of formalizing how it works. And our progress is evidence.
  - the_af 10y ago
    I don't know if we're getting there. There is no evident natural progression to this conclusion. Maybe the brain just doesn't work in ways that can be formalized, and maybe it does. I don't think the evidence so far points unambiguously towards a model of the brain as a formal computing device. It may very well turn out to be a dead-end. What is true, however, is that it's not redundant to speak of "computational thinking", because it's not been proven a synonym for thinking in general.
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
There's a very important distinction between computation your brain can do, and computation you can describe in words and communicate to other brains that then do operations that follow the same rules. With the former, the only way to verify, reproduce, or modify the thinking is to go to the brain that had that thought and think it again. With the latter, you can look at the verbal descriptions and can largely ignore which brain is thinking the thoughts. That's the fundamental distinction. It's not that the thinking is more or less computational. It's that the thinking can be put down in words as a computation without great loss in fidelity.
- unabst 10y ago
  > and computation you can describe in words and communicate to other brains But we think in words. Thinking and speaking come from the same place, and when we are thinking, most of it is us talking to ourselves. It's our inner dialog. It's "communicating to other brains", where "other" is "our". The only difference really is who it's directed to, whether we've voiced it or wrote it down, and whether we self-censored some of it in the process.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    > But we think in words. Not everyone does this. > The only difference really is who it's directed to, whether we've voiced it or wrote it down, and whether we self-censored some of it in the process. That last part is the part that's key to computational thinking. What has been elided from your thoughts (expressed as an inner monologue, communicated via writing or voice to others)? Computational thinking requires you to be able to provide sufficient detail that a "computer" can repeat the process that you have performed, and potentially enough logical information that it can handle exceptional cases and situations. For a sufficiently advanced computer (read: intelligent and educated human), "Solve the equation for X" may be sufficient. For a program in C, you'll have to provide more detail. For a Mathematica program, it's about the same as communicating it to a human (depending on their level of education and the qualities of the equation, Mathematica may require more or less detail).
    - 10y ago
wingcommander 10y ago
>> And that's the field of AI. No that's more like classic psychology / neuroscience.
westoncb 10y ago
> Thinking is already computation. Computational is redundant. There is a difference between computation being part of the underlying substrate of thought, and having thoughts formulated explicitly in terms of a computational framework. The article is advocating the second thing here (the question of whether the second thing is a necessary consequence of the first thing is an open question: neurons are also part of the substrate of thought—does that mean we will inevitably come to think in terms of neurons?) Edit: thinking more about it though, I do believe the structure of our brains makes it inevitable that we will always need abstractions and to consider alternate problem/solution representations—but the emphasis on algorithms is more related to contemporary computing hardware than the structure of the human brain.
johncip 10y ago
Literally the first sentence after the preamble is: I use the term “computational thinking” as shorthand for “thinking like a computer scientist.”

by unabst 10y ago

the_af 10y ago

> Thinking is already computation. Computational is redundant. I don't think this is obviously true. At least superficially it isn't: the human brain doesn't work like a formal system, as far as we know. Most definitions of computational thinking I've read do not equate it to thinking.

unabst 10y ago
But I think we're getting there. To say the brain doesn't work like a formal system and to say how the brain works cannot be formalized are two distinct statements. Natural language may not be a formal language, but the process of building natural language systems is that of formalizing how it works. And our progress is evidence.
- the_af 10y ago
  I don't know if we're getting there. There is no evident natural progression to this conclusion. Maybe the brain just doesn't work in ways that can be formalized, and maybe it does. I don't think the evidence so far points unambiguously towards a model of the brain as a formal computing device. It may very well turn out to be a dead-end. What is true, however, is that it's not redundant to speak of "computational thinking", because it's not been proven a synonym for thinking in general.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

There's a very important distinction between computation your brain can do, and computation you can describe in words and communicate to other brains that then do operations that follow the same rules. With the former, the only way to verify, reproduce, or modify the thinking is to go to the brain that had that thought and think it again. With the latter, you can look at the verbal descriptions and can largely ignore which brain is thinking the thoughts. That's the fundamental distinction. It's not that the thinking is more or less computational. It's that the thinking can be put down in words as a computation without great loss in fidelity.

unabst 10y ago
> and computation you can describe in words and communicate to other brains But we think in words. Thinking and speaking come from the same place, and when we are thinking, most of it is us talking to ourselves. It's our inner dialog. It's "communicating to other brains", where "other" is "our". The only difference really is who it's directed to, whether we've voiced it or wrote it down, and whether we self-censored some of it in the process.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  > But we think in words. Not everyone does this. > The only difference really is who it's directed to, whether we've voiced it or wrote it down, and whether we self-censored some of it in the process. That last part is the part that's key to computational thinking. What has been elided from your thoughts (expressed as an inner monologue, communicated via writing or voice to others)? Computational thinking requires you to be able to provide sufficient detail that a "computer" can repeat the process that you have performed, and potentially enough logical information that it can handle exceptional cases and situations. For a sufficiently advanced computer (read: intelligent and educated human), "Solve the equation for X" may be sufficient. For a program in C, you'll have to provide more detail. For a Mathematica program, it's about the same as communicating it to a human (depending on their level of education and the qualities of the equation, Mathematica may require more or less detail).
  - 10y ago

wingcommander 10y ago

>> And that's the field of AI. No that's more like classic psychology / neuroscience.

westoncb 10y ago

> Thinking is already computation. Computational is redundant. There is a difference between computation being part of the underlying substrate of thought, and having thoughts formulated explicitly in terms of a computational framework. The article is advocating the second thing here (the question of whether the second thing is a necessary consequence of the first thing is an open question: neurons are also part of the substrate of thought—does that mean we will inevitably come to think in terms of neurons?) Edit: thinking more about it though, I do believe the structure of our brains makes it inevitable that we will always need abstractions and to consider alternate problem/solution representations—but the emphasis on algorithms is more related to contemporary computing hardware than the structure of the human brain.

johncip 10y ago

Literally the first sentence after the preamble is: I use the term “computational thinking” as shorthand for “thinking like a computer scientist.”