thanks! coincidentally i finished reading your Rejecting the Received View like 10 minutes ago. all made sense to me. Q of course is what can you do w the restricted concept. apparently enactive autopoesis... i will need to read more!
-
-
Replying to @svateboje
Cool, glad you enjoyed it! "Individuation without Representation" develops some of the same ideas, although I think there are still problems. To be clear I don't think enactive autopoiesis strictly follows from this approach to computation, but it is at least compatible.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @joe_dewhurst
found time for your review of Piccinini. thanks for making that available. if you have time & inclination, i'm curious re the foundational role of gates & how to ID. may have missed it, but doesn't seem to come out in his SEP article. is that something that fits a tweet or two?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @svateboje
Do you mean in terms of how the focus of a lot of this discussion in on how to individuate basic logic gates, rather than other kinds of computational component? I think this is really just a reflection of the foundational role that (e.g. NAND) gates play in digital computers...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @joe_dewhurst @svateboje
...such that you might think of them as one of the most primitive kinds of component. Piccinini has some discussion in his book of more complex kinds of component, like arithmetic logic units, but there hasn't (to my knowledge) been much philosophical discussion of this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joe_dewhurst @svateboje
There should probably also be more discussion of software, in terms of a philosophy of *computer science* rather than a philosophy of *physical computation* (these might perhaps be slightly different things). I've tended to focus on the latter, and I use simple logic gates...
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @joe_dewhurst @svateboje
It is endlessly surprising to me that these foundational issues in computer science are so poorly understood in philosophy, especially by critics of computationalism who ought to know better.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
It was illusion-shattering for me to read Floridi argue that the Curry-Howard correspondence implies that Turing machines can never be conscious. This argument rests on deep errors in comprehension of basic computer science. https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implausible …pic.twitter.com/ADnPB5VQpl
4 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Sorry, perhaps you misunderstood. The illusion that shattered was that the top ranks of AI Philosophy were competent and knowledgeable regarding their subject matter. No competent expert could make the argument I quoted above. The emperor has no clothes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
-
Is there anyone more prominent in phil tech, especially regarding ties to both industry and government, than Luciano Floridi? I think he's the top of the stack. Says something about the stack, and what rises to the top.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Philosophy is probably dead as a discipline now? Most of the thinkers I know would take a different branding.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.