3 ms·

> I showed you that subjectivity doesn’t effect whether computation occurs. You didn't "show" it; you simply asserted it. You also made a number of appeals to

> I showed you that subjectivity doesn’t effect whether computation occurs. You didn't "show" it; you simply asserted it. You also made a number of appeals to (uncited) authority concerning the nature of computers. You made an argument from cells; I presume that was to do with the way that DNA and so on works. Although not all cells have DNA... Anyway. I concede that was an argument, and not a bald assertion. But it's a circular argument; if your definition of "computer" includes the operation of DNA, then the conclusion that a computer can exist without interpretation or intent is unavoidable. You're definition begs the question.

i_like_apis 4y ago
> You didn't "show" it; you simply asserted it. You're not understanding what I said. Last time: Turing Machines have a specific set of necessary ingredients. That's not a "bald assertion" or an "appeal to authority". It's an observation about the theory of Turing machines [1]. Whether or not a physical system has those ingredients is an _objective_ matter. Also an observation. In case you need to think it through, there was a simple argument which you cannot rationally refute: i) If one of the ingredients is missing, "subjectively" wishing something is a Turing Machine will not make it so. ii) If all the ingredients are present, "subjectively" wishing that something isn't a Turing Machine will not change the fact that it is. Conclusion: subjectivity has no effect on whether something is or is not a Turing machine. QED. ---- You're the one making unsupported assertions and talking in circles. I can see that you're going to reply with more disagreement. Please imagine that my response is "I said good day sir!" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Description
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > Please imagine that my response is "I said good day sir!" That sounds a lot like "Anyway, why do I think I have time for this ... " It's clear to me that "stuff" can be arranged to work as a Turing Machine (or some other kind of computer) without design or intent. Whether it is such a thing or not depends on how it is used; a Turing Machine that is given random inputs, or whose outputs don't mean anything to anyone, is a computer only in a formal sense. If nobody knows that some thing is a computer, I'm not sure that it's computer-ness is meaningful. So that's why I think intent and interpretation are relevant.

i_like_apis 4y ago

> You didn't "show" it; you simply asserted it. You're not understanding what I said. Last time: Turing Machines have a specific set of necessary ingredients. That's not a "bald assertion" or an "appeal to authority". It's an observation about the theory of Turing machines [1]. Whether or not a physical system has those ingredients is an _objective_ matter. Also an observation. In case you need to think it through, there was a simple argument which you cannot rationally refute: i) If one of the ingredients is missing, "subjectively" wishing something is a Turing Machine will not make it so. ii) If all the ingredients are present, "subjectively" wishing that something isn't a Turing Machine will not change the fact that it is. Conclusion: subjectivity has no effect on whether something is or is not a Turing machine. QED. ---- You're the one making unsupported assertions and talking in circles. I can see that you're going to reply with more disagreement. Please imagine that my response is "I said good day sir!" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Description

denton-scratch 4y ago
> Please imagine that my response is "I said good day sir!" That sounds a lot like "Anyway, why do I think I have time for this ... " It's clear to me that "stuff" can be arranged to work as a Turing Machine (or some other kind of computer) without design or intent. Whether it is such a thing or not depends on how it is used; a Turing Machine that is given random inputs, or whose outputs don't mean anything to anyone, is a computer only in a formal sense. If nobody knows that some thing is a computer, I'm not sure that it's computer-ness is meaningful. So that's why I think intent and interpretation are relevant.