4 ms·

The dude may be a little handwavey but cut him some slack. It's a weird subject. Stretch your little Vulcan mind and try to meet him halfway. By "computers are

The dude may be a little handwavey but cut him some slack. It's a weird subject. Stretch your little Vulcan mind and try to meet him halfway. By "computers are not in the world" he means that a computer is based upon an abstract interpretation of the world, not the world itself.

htk 4y ago
We are not that much different by processing data that our biological sensors feed us.
- swayvil 4y ago
  We can interact with uninterpreted reality. A computer can't. That's the difference between a lemon and a story about a lemon. That's a UNIVERSE of difference.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    First: as said, we all work through representations. And we also all have inputs. "All" being human and machine, in the context of intelligence. We do not get directly to the lemon and we work on stories about the lemon. And - again -, the idea was to demonstrate that something was impossible. Not to contemplate ideas like in a bad pulp fiction about the Sixties - less productively than Java without garbage collection, because in Java, that which is now garbage has formerly been actually used.
mdp2021 4y ago
> By "computers are not in the world" he means that a computer is based upon an abstract interpretation of the world, not the world itself First of all, what makes you think that this was not clear. Secondly - why, the human mind does not work through representations? Kant and the noumenon came here to be ignored? Schopenhauer and the Vorstellung? Is it not evident anyway? Third: that idea, all those there written ideas, should be there to /entail/ that "something is impossible". That is their task. I would like to see those Key Performance Indicators met.
- swayvil 4y ago
  1) because there was mockery. 2) you say it's representations all the way down? Well it doesn't look that way to me. Or the author apparently. So that's two of us. 3) go with extremely unlikely then. Don't trip over it.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    1) You are saying that a call for the use of wits had you decide for a label of 'misunderstanding'. What?! 2) And your opinion should be postulate in discussion? Especially when it was reminded that the representational nature of the mind and knowledge was recognized since the dawn of thought then called a main problem (Kant) and the starting point (Schopenhauer) at relative maturity? You think that just saying that "you see otherwise" suffices? 3) And the critical difference should be one of "degrees"?! It has to be _proven_, whether it is 'impossible' or 'almost so'. And if that rhetoric that sounds like sophism just meant "'difficult' in front of obstacles", well that should be more obvious to the architect than to the commenting passer-by looking from the border of the construction site - it is a very gratuitous note which wastes everyone's time; and it if it meant so, it should have expressed so instead of literally different statements (and morally "bait").

htk 4y ago

We are not that much different by processing data that our biological sensors feed us.

swayvil 4y ago
We can interact with uninterpreted reality. A computer can't. That's the difference between a lemon and a story about a lemon. That's a UNIVERSE of difference.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  First: as said, we all work through representations. And we also all have inputs. "All" being human and machine, in the context of intelligence. We do not get directly to the lemon and we work on stories about the lemon. And - again -, the idea was to demonstrate that something was impossible. Not to contemplate ideas like in a bad pulp fiction about the Sixties - less productively than Java without garbage collection, because in Java, that which is now garbage has formerly been actually used.

mdp2021 4y ago

> By "computers are not in the world" he means that a computer is based upon an abstract interpretation of the world, not the world itself First of all, what makes you think that this was not clear. Secondly - why, the human mind does not work through representations? Kant and the noumenon came here to be ignored? Schopenhauer and the Vorstellung? Is it not evident anyway? Third: that idea, all those there written ideas, should be there to /entail/ that "something is impossible". That is their task. I would like to see those Key Performance Indicators met.

swayvil 4y ago
1) because there was mockery. 2) you say it's representations all the way down? Well it doesn't look that way to me. Or the author apparently. So that's two of us. 3) go with extremely unlikely then. Don't trip over it.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  1) You are saying that a call for the use of wits had you decide for a label of 'misunderstanding'. What?! 2) And your opinion should be postulate in discussion? Especially when it was reminded that the representational nature of the mind and knowledge was recognized since the dawn of thought then called a main problem (Kant) and the starting point (Schopenhauer) at relative maturity? You think that just saying that "you see otherwise" suffices? 3) And the critical difference should be one of "degrees"?! It has to be _proven_, whether it is 'impossible' or 'almost so'. And if that rhetoric that sounds like sophism just meant "'difficult' in front of obstacles", well that should be more obvious to the architect than to the commenting passer-by looking from the border of the construction site - it is a very gratuitous note which wastes everyone's time; and it if it meant so, it should have expressed so instead of literally different statements (and morally "bait").