3 ms·

Computers don't reason. Computation isn't a property of any physical system, it's a subjective property attributed by an observer. For example, consider a circ

Computers don't reason. Computation isn't a property of any physical system, it's a subjective property attributed by an observer. For example, consider a circuit. Suppose we attribute TRUE to 3v, and FALSE to 0v. Then two simultaneous input of 3v, 3v giving 3v (and so on: 33->3, 03->0, 30->0, 00->0) can be said to compute AND. But the same physical system is at the same time "computing" OR. Here we attribute TRUE to the 0 signal. Any "computer" is actually simultaneously running many, quite radically different, programs. We only attribute one program to it in how we rig devices (screens, keyboards, etc.) to interpret signals to mean something device-relative. If you "plug a speaker in a gfx socket" the output isn't visual. It means something completely different, and the GPU is computing audio now. So "computational" algorithms in being merely purely formal specifications do not describe any unique physical system, and only apply to physical systems in an observer-relative way. Computation is explanatorily bankrupt; it is only a game people play in rigging physical systems to behave as they wish. Animals however have the intrinsic property of intelligence: it isn't observer-relative. We are, quite literally, the observer imparting meaning to our environment. Our brain states resolve to unique thoughts, not to "many radically different ones simultaneously". Gold isn't both gold AND something else, and neither is thinking. The category of explanation for these abilities which are intrinsic to animals cannot be, and is not, computational. It's scientific. Involving characterising the properties of materials, and their causal effects.

lmm 5y ago
> Any "computer" is actually simultaneously running many, quite radically different, programs. We only attribute one program to it in how we rig devices (screens, keyboards, etc.) to interpret signals to mean something device-relative. If you "plug a speaker in a gfx socket" the output isn't visual. It means something completely different, and the GPU is computing audio now. I'm sure if you spliced an animal's nerves to different places, that would make them "mean" something different. In fact we know that this kind of thing happens in nature, e.g. the star-nosed mole's visual cortex is connected to the parts of its nose that sense touch rather than to its eyes. > Animals however have the intrinsic property of intelligence: it isn't observer-relative. We are, quite literally, the observer imparting meaning to our environment. Our brain states resolve to unique thoughts, not to "many radically different ones simultaneously". Gold isn't both gold AND something else, and neither is thinking. How do you know? What would you expect to be different if it was? Often two people do observe the same piece of animal behaviour but disagree about whether it shows the animal was thinking/intelligent.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  > I'm sure if you spliced an animal's nerves to different places, That's sort of right, yes. But if you put their nerves in the wrong devices, animals wouldn't be intelligent at all. And these nerves are themselves plastic, ie., they arent like a CPU with a limited set of physical operations; nerves are part of the body and grow. So intelligence is really bodily. Intelligence is something that occurs because your brain-motor-body system is highly plastic (at the celluar and whole-body level) and is capable of adapting itself to its enviornment competently in ways that we call "intelligent". It isnt any computation properties of the brain which do this (if we impart any, we cannot impart them uniquely anyway, ie., they cant explain much). Rather it's the plasticity of the body (including the brain) which provides "the right device" for intelligence. > Often two people do observe the same piece Well it is literally the case that I showed a CPU running a "program" to several alien races, none could tell me what program it was running. Each could provide an essentially infinite number of different answers, depending on how they interpret the electrical signal. A program is a purely formal thing that describes no physical system uniquely. Whereas if I showed animals to these aliens, they could actually describe what processes constituted their intelligence. And likewise, if i showed them Gold; they could tell it apart from Silver. Insofar as a really-existing digital computer has anything akin to intelligence, its because of how its devices behave. Ie., if you showed aliens the LCD, then they could say "well the LCD output is particular, and is intereptable 'this way'.". We are easily fooled by the devices we attach to CPUs into thinking that the CPU is "computing" the device output. It isnt. We have just created an illusion: the keyboard button says '1', '+', '2' and the LCD says '3' and we think the CPU has computed 3. But, looking at the CPU itself, it has actually "computed" an infinite number of things. The '1' signal could be interpreted abitaribly. My point here is that talking about "computation" is a deeply unhelpful way to understand anything. It's a profoundly non-explanatory category (it cannot explain any physical system; it is just a formal specific we follow). Once we throw that away. We can see more clearly that what enables animal intelligence is the character of their "devices". The physical plasticity of their tissues (their growth and adaption), their motor skills, and so on. It is possible to describe a tiny subset of intelligence ("reasoning") by a formal system; but that misses why animals can reason in the first place. You don't get the capacity for reasoning by just making electrons dance in an observer-relative way. That requires the observer to already have that capacity. The capacity itself is a property of the physical system, "the animal".

lmm 5y ago

> Any "computer" is actually simultaneously running many, quite radically different, programs. We only attribute one program to it in how we rig devices (screens, keyboards, etc.) to interpret signals to mean something device-relative. If you "plug a speaker in a gfx socket" the output isn't visual. It means something completely different, and the GPU is computing audio now. I'm sure if you spliced an animal's nerves to different places, that would make them "mean" something different. In fact we know that this kind of thing happens in nature, e.g. the star-nosed mole's visual cortex is connected to the parts of its nose that sense touch rather than to its eyes. > Animals however have the intrinsic property of intelligence: it isn't observer-relative. We are, quite literally, the observer imparting meaning to our environment. Our brain states resolve to unique thoughts, not to "many radically different ones simultaneously". Gold isn't both gold AND something else, and neither is thinking. How do you know? What would you expect to be different if it was? Often two people do observe the same piece of animal behaviour but disagree about whether it shows the animal was thinking/intelligent.

mjburgess 5y ago
> I'm sure if you spliced an animal's nerves to different places, That's sort of right, yes. But if you put their nerves in the wrong devices, animals wouldn't be intelligent at all. And these nerves are themselves plastic, ie., they arent like a CPU with a limited set of physical operations; nerves are part of the body and grow. So intelligence is really bodily. Intelligence is something that occurs because your brain-motor-body system is highly plastic (at the celluar and whole-body level) and is capable of adapting itself to its enviornment competently in ways that we call "intelligent". It isnt any computation properties of the brain which do this (if we impart any, we cannot impart them uniquely anyway, ie., they cant explain much). Rather it's the plasticity of the body (including the brain) which provides "the right device" for intelligence. > Often two people do observe the same piece Well it is literally the case that I showed a CPU running a "program" to several alien races, none could tell me what program it was running. Each could provide an essentially infinite number of different answers, depending on how they interpret the electrical signal. A program is a purely formal thing that describes no physical system uniquely. Whereas if I showed animals to these aliens, they could actually describe what processes constituted their intelligence. And likewise, if i showed them Gold; they could tell it apart from Silver. Insofar as a really-existing digital computer has anything akin to intelligence, its because of how its devices behave. Ie., if you showed aliens the LCD, then they could say "well the LCD output is particular, and is intereptable 'this way'.". We are easily fooled by the devices we attach to CPUs into thinking that the CPU is "computing" the device output. It isnt. We have just created an illusion: the keyboard button says '1', '+', '2' and the LCD says '3' and we think the CPU has computed 3. But, looking at the CPU itself, it has actually "computed" an infinite number of things. The '1' signal could be interpreted abitaribly. My point here is that talking about "computation" is a deeply unhelpful way to understand anything. It's a profoundly non-explanatory category (it cannot explain any physical system; it is just a formal specific we follow). Once we throw that away. We can see more clearly that what enables animal intelligence is the character of their "devices". The physical plasticity of their tissues (their growth and adaption), their motor skills, and so on. It is possible to describe a tiny subset of intelligence ("reasoning") by a formal system; but that misses why animals can reason in the first place. You don't get the capacity for reasoning by just making electrons dance in an observer-relative way. That requires the observer to already have that capacity. The capacity itself is a property of the physical system, "the animal".