omg what a wank 
-
-
lots of arguments against comp theory take some property of a computer and show that the brain does not have it, so one needs to clarify.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
When you say a computer though you mean a PC? When I say computer I mean formalised definition of Turing Machine which is based on person.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @maria_ndrnh and
Sorry to jump in, but how is your argument sounder than bad ones based on PCs? Why TMs and not say Lambda calculus? ...
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @kaznatcheev @o_guest and
... lambda calculus is not "clearly" simulating people, in the sense TM was...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kaznatcheev @maria_ndrnh and
Fair point, but what I mean is any computational system is in some way simulating what the brain does, because they both compute.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @maria_ndrnh and
then why didn't you like the analogy of a pen on table computing the function "stay here"?...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kaznatcheev @maria_ndrnh and
Is it just me that feels this is turning slightly personal?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @maria_ndrnh and
Didn't mean it personally. I felt Searle's pen example is physicalists interpretation of CT-thesis (one I disagree with) which is relevant.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kaznatcheev @maria_ndrnh and
I find Searle's arguments, Chinese room, etc generally very shallow and pathetic attempts although often successful at confusing students.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes
[also racist btw]
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.