3 ms·
Their argument rests on computation being a theory ("simulation") while agency/cognition being real ("processes"). Put that way, I don't buy the distinction. S
by calf 1y ago
Their argument rests on computation being a theory ("simulation") while agency/cognition being real ("processes"). Put that way, I don't buy the distinction.
Specifically, my reactions are:
a) Defining agency in terms "relevance" or "salience" is just circular logic.
b) Their argument about the extended Church-Turing-Deutsch thesis would already apply to physics and the universe, not just intelligent entities. So this is just poorly argued.
Also, I think Turing to his credit was somewhat aware of the issue, their own citation of Copeland 2020 mentions Turing's own musings on this.
But I'd love to understand more, this stuff is always neat to read about.
- tbrownaw 1y ago> Their argument rests on computation being a theory ("simulation") while agency/cognition being real ("processes"). Put that way, I don't buy the distinction. One is wholly internal to the entity under discussion, while the other isn't.
- calf 1y agoThe extended Church-Turing thesis is specifically about the relationship between theoretical TMs and the physical universe. So these paper authors are just begging the question—they disagree with the thesis. But as I say in a) and b) above, (I believe that) they make for poor arguments.