re: The Universal Computer

what a great point!

apparently, their reasoning is like this:
1. for many, staplers (and many other tools at the office) are mysterious!
2. mysterious things are scary and should be avoided.
3. but our brains can't be scary. they're us.
4. therefore, all newtonian physics must be wrong because it tries to describe aspects of
both staplers and brains (which obviously can't be similar because one's really scary and the
other i like).
5. thus, staplers can no longer be mysterious, especially if we think of them as paper weights
and ignore the mechanics.



a puppet show has a director. the only real difference in programming is that for strings,
they use thread, we use quote marks. everything's a tool of some sort.

wonder if people who think that animals and machines are fundamentally different, that
algorithmic functions are somehow "less" than natural, also believe such vocabulary literally
as "lower" species. it's like thinking "queen" ants have any authority over workers?

there is obviously no objective way to measure complexity or success. humans just calibrate
the criteria to put humans on top. it can equally be said that while other species function
without much language or invention, we rely on it. we could just as easily be the weakest,
form of life. (if we had to swing our fastest from trees all the time, we'd think for a split
second and wind up dead. whereas if monkeys depended on picking stocks in order to get
food, they'd do better than most investment experts.)

in fact, given the rarity of our enlarged cortexes (the consciousness that humans alone are
saddled with) , as opposed to a ubiquitous yet intricate organ like the stomach, one could
easily draw the conclussion, so much awareness was a big mistake.


no one need agree. it's simply common sense that the human brain is hardly an ideal judge
of which neurological methods are superior. it's like asking george bush who he voted for.


> [ … ] Interesting to note the degree to which these concentrate on refuting Roger
> Penrose's very popular claims in such books as 'The Emperor's New Clothes'
> that mathematical reasoning is not algorithmic. Davis does not assert the
> contrary; only that Penrose's proofs are "deeply fallacious". I have been
> somewhat mystified by the popularity of Penrose's 'proofs' that there are
> thought processes of which humans are capable but computers are not. I
> suspect that their popularity is an indication of the strength of the
> desire, in many people, to believe that humans are, fundamentally, different
> from machines.
>
> My own feeling is that the notion that human thought is algorithmic is no
> more demeaning of humanity than the Darwinian notion of human (and other
> species') evolution from lower life forms. The truth of the matter is much
> to be desired. And it is always preferable to falsehood, however supportive
> the falsehood is of religious or other doctrine.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

___________________
PLASMA STUDII
501©(3) non-profit
stage * galleries * web
POI Box 1086
Cathedral Station
New York, NY 10025
http://plasmastudii.org

should it be the case that human cogitation is explicable in terms of
algorithms, this would not demean or lessen the wonder of thought and
feeling. on the contrary, the notion that all we are of mind and emotion is
the product of agencies of *this* world suggests to me that the material
world is almost unfathomably rich in possibilities for mapping into mind and
emotion, thought and feeling. and that it is all in front of us to be
explored. if we do not shut down the exploration. if we keep valuing the
open and inquiring mind.

it seems to me that what separates us from the other animals is the richness
of language of which we are capable. other animals are not incapable of
language. it is simply a matter of degree, of richness of language–and,
correspondingly, we are capable of greater logical complexity in our
reasoning and information storage and retrieval.

i have a cat. she is a thinking, feeling, sentient being. she lets me know
what she needs me to know. she walks in front of the monitor when i miss the
point. she knows how to communicate with me. i think she probably has me
quite well-trained, actually.

ja
http://vispo.com

> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Plasma Studii
> Sent: July 29, 2005 10:38 AM
> To: Jim Andrews; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: re: The Universal Computer
>
>
> what a great point!
>
> apparently, their reasoning is like this:
> 1. for many, staplers (and many other tools at the office) are mysterious!
> 2. mysterious things are scary and should be avoided.
> 3. but our brains can't be scary. they're us.
> 4. therefore, all newtonian physics must be wrong because it
> tries to describe aspects of
> both staplers and brains (which obviously can't be similar
> because one's really scary and the
> other i like).
> 5. thus, staplers can no longer be mysterious, especially if we
> think of them as paper weights
> and ignore the mechanics.
>
>
>
> a puppet show has a director. the only real difference in
> programming is that for strings,
> they use thread, we use quote marks. everything's a tool of some sort.
>
> wonder if people who think that animals and machines are
> fundamentally different, that
> algorithmic functions are somehow "less" than natural, also
> believe such vocabulary literally
> as "lower" species. it's like thinking "queen" ants have any
> authority over workers?
>
> there is obviously no objective way to measure complexity or
> success. humans just calibrate
> the criteria to put humans on top. it can equally be said that
> while other species function
> without much language or invention, we rely on it. we could just
> as easily be the weakest,
> form of life. (if we had to swing our fastest from trees all the
> time, we'd think for a split
> second and wind up dead. whereas if monkeys depended on picking
> stocks in order to get
> food, they'd do better than most investment experts.)
>
> in fact, given the rarity of our enlarged cortexes (the
> consciousness that humans alone are
> saddled with) , as opposed to a ubiquitous yet intricate organ
> like the stomach, one could
> easily draw the conclussion, so much awareness was a big mistake.
>
>
> no one need agree. it's simply common sense that the human brain
> is hardly an ideal judge
> of which neurological methods are superior. it's like asking
> george bush who he voted for.

On Jul 30, 2005, at 6:22 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:

>should it be the case that human cogitation is explicable in terms of
algorithms, this would not demean or lessen the wonder of thought and
feeling. on the contrary, the notion that all we are of mind and emotion is
the product of agencies of *this* world suggests to me that the material
world is almost unfathomably rich in possibilities for mapping into mind and
emotion, thought and feeling. and that it is all in front of us to be
explored. if we do not shut down the exploration. if we keep valuing the
open and inquiring mind.


The Earth need not be the center of the universe to feel OK about ourselves. just as humans
need not have entirely mysterious, non-algorithmic motivations.


>it seems to me that what separates us from the other animals is the richness
of language of which we are capable. other animals are not incapable of
language. it is simply a matter of degree, of richness of language–and,
correspondingly, we are capable of greater logical complexity in our
reasoning and information storage and retrieval.

though i think your ultimate point is spot on, i'm not sure about this animal cognition stuff.
it'd be like someone saying they saw a car fly through outer space. cars just don't have that
kind of engine. though hey anything's possible. i can't refute what you saw, even if i doubt
the conclusions.

so why do people go through such (often unconsciously) length to explain their projected
anthropomorph-ization of animals while denying fairly clear and probable similarities to
computers?



the bee dance* is neat, but it's a little too tempting to calling a subset of geometry a
language. technically it is, but has such extremely narrow application. in this case, it's even
a stretch to call communication language. (than why not call GPS linguistics then?)

chimps (supposedly) learn sign, but only about a vocab of 100 words. trainers swear things
like "me now love baby" means "please scratch my back. but i doubt washoe could actually
comprehend the words he memorized.

what these DO prove is that our expectations of what animals can perform is far lower than
what they really are capable of. they can learn alarming amounts, to get food, etc. but it's a
little more complicated version of pavlov ringing a bell. sure, the dogs appear glad to see
him too. doing so, makes it more likely he will keep taking care of them. people own dogs
that are excited to see them, and if the dogs aren't are probably going to take worse care of
them (the owner's need not even be aware of this going on)

hans the counting horse took subtle almost involuntary cues from watching his trainer ask
questions. body language was like telling him "stop there, or keep tapping your foot". it is
amazing that he figured out these tiny clues and how they related to how much attention he
got. surely the more he did right, the more secure his meal ticket. the more wrong, the
more likely he would be mistreated. it's not even certain, the trainer knew hans was doing
this.


* for anybody who hadn't heard of the bee dance, bee's return to the hive and explain to each
other where to find pollen by flying in a "vocab" of stunts. the dance does not appear to be
simply pointing, but more "conceptual" directions, like "turn toward that big tree then … "

>i have a cat. she is a thinking, feeling, sentient being. she lets me know
what she needs me to know. she walks in front of the monitor when i miss the
point. she knows how to communicate with me. i think she probably has me
quite well-trained, actually.

you're right, we are trained by our pets. maybe not fish.

but it is neurologically impossible for feelings to explain why she behaves as she does. she
needs food, etc,. and it is in her best interest to keep nagging you, until you do something
about it. (obviously, she'll stop "communicating" if you walk toward the kitchen, resume if
you suddenly stop. she has a proven method how, and will do the same thing every time.
we just read it as affection.