3 ms·

> I think that the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of theory discovery, in the same way that a computer can not understand Chinese Arithmetic w

> I think that the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of theory discovery, in the same way that a computer can not understand Chinese Arithmetic was deliberately mentioned, you might as well say "Of course a calculator app on your phone isn't _really_ doing arithmetic, the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of discovering the correct answer, in the same way that a computer can not understand compound interest". There is a sense in which you are correct, but it is a very uninteresting one. Practical applications of computation follow from ignoring this semantic debate.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
>here is a sense in which you are correct, but it is a very uninteresting one. Practical applications of computation follow from ignoring this semantic debate. I think the fact that a computer can execute a program to compound interest isn’t a particularly novel one or interesting idea to me. Going back to the original article, I think it was an unnecessary and incorrect anthropromorpiziation to write a computer discovered a theory of disease. Why isn’t my lazy laptop curing diseases? I think there is a lot of interesting ideas in this semantic area. Can a computer compose all possible melodies and release them into the public domain[1]. If I write a script that formulates and posts every combination of "x variable cures cancer", did the computer or I discover a theory? If no, what are the minimum requirements? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/wxepzw/musicians-algorithmically-generate-every-possible-melody-release-them-to-public-domain https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/...