RE: We are no different than computers
May 14, 2015 at 7:43 am
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2015 at 7:48 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Exactly, they are more robust than any digital gate, and -could- function as universal gates. Charles Peirce first showed that NOR could execute the function of any other gate in series or parallel (or some combination). Henry Sheffer proved (and importantly, relative to Peirce, published...lol), using NAND, that there was such a thing as a universal gate, upon which any logical function could be built.
see Peirces Arrow, Peirce generally being the more well known not only because he was the first to publish his work, but also because he was a pioneer when it came to demonstrating that electronic gates could be built. Obviously useful in hindsight.....lol
It is important, for any theory of mind invoking computation or logical operations, that this was found to be true. Because whatever we may choose to conceptualize natures role in all of this one thing can be said with confidence. Nature is not a designer, not a programmer. It is a much simpler construction paradigm that nature toes the line on. If nature were capable of "blindly producing" a thinking machine, repetition of components would, by the nature of it's constructive means, feature heavily. We would not expect to find task specific gates in greater abundance than universal gates, if this were an "accidental computer". We would expect, instead, to find something very much like a neural net comprised of universals, in structure - which is what we -do- find....yet another reason I feel that computation is a powerful explanation for at least -some- of the effects we attribute to mind, even if I could not, with certainty, say that computation explains it all, to everyones satisfaction (or even my own).
see Peirces Arrow, Peirce generally being the more well known not only because he was the first to publish his work, but also because he was a pioneer when it came to demonstrating that electronic gates could be built. Obviously useful in hindsight.....lol
It is important, for any theory of mind invoking computation or logical operations, that this was found to be true. Because whatever we may choose to conceptualize natures role in all of this one thing can be said with confidence. Nature is not a designer, not a programmer. It is a much simpler construction paradigm that nature toes the line on. If nature were capable of "blindly producing" a thinking machine, repetition of components would, by the nature of it's constructive means, feature heavily. We would not expect to find task specific gates in greater abundance than universal gates, if this were an "accidental computer". We would expect, instead, to find something very much like a neural net comprised of universals, in structure - which is what we -do- find....yet another reason I feel that computation is a powerful explanation for at least -some- of the effects we attribute to mind, even if I could not, with certainty, say that computation explains it all, to everyones satisfaction (or even my own).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!