From: Grant Callaghan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun 03 Nov 2002 - 22:33:15 GMT
>>If we came upon a computer and couldn't access its insides without
>>destroying it, could you prove that a program was running it?
>But, of course, this collection of pieces we now have is not the computer.
>And yes, it is a simple process to identify the program running in an
>intact computer, or the fact there is no program running.
>By analyzing its performance....
If it's such a simple process, why don't you tell us exactly how you would do it? If it is running, what is running it?
I beg to differ on the idea that the human body is not a computer. Each
cell in our body carries out a program contained in the DNA of that cell.
The brain itself is organized to handle incoming information based on the
structure of the body and the brain. Where do you draw the line between
what is a program and what is not?
You refuse to agree that analysis of the human performance proves there is
anything we can call a mind but would easily accept that you could do such a
thing with an equally complex performance by a machine that you know nothing
about the internal workings of. I don't buy it. The only reason you know
about algorythms is because of what you do know about computers. But
suppose we sent something like IBM's chess playing machine back in time a
century or two and put it up against someone like Capablanca. Would he be
able to deduce just by the moves it made that he was playing against a
machine? I suspect he wouldn't.
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 03 Nov 2002 - 22:37:08 GMT