tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post4511191037475410921..comments2024-03-19T04:19:18.871-05:00Comments on Atheism Analyzed: Another Response to Weekend Fisher, on the Physical MindUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-18206591182707637692016-07-14T17:31:21.862-05:002016-07-14T17:31:21.862-05:00Yeah, my mouth is always enabled, and my ears are ...Yeah, my mouth is always enabled, and my ears are frequently set at a very high threshold for noise rejection. So I don't necessarily hear what I'm saying, and I find this to be very convenient at times. <br /><br />It's similar to the narcissist mode, where mouth is always ON and at full volume and ears set to hear only praise (anti-dissent threshold set to max).Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-54016314741160711912016-07-14T16:30:31.857-05:002016-07-14T16:30:31.857-05:00Oh snap! I left out another possibility that shoul...Oh snap! I left out another possibility that should be considered seriously (because it is REAL).<br /><br />(5) What if the memory address (from which I extracted the byte) is actually a mapping to an I/O device? Imagine an 8-bit bidirectional device that contains Discrete Inputs/Discrete Outputs. Now the individual bits are mapped to (perhaps) a switch. (Did you do that, Stan?!?) So, none of the previous possibilities apply.<br /><br />And you still want to insist that "software" is a PHYSICAL entity, and therefore by analogy, the "mind" is a PHYSICAL entity?!?<br /><br />If you can't make a convincing case for "software," then it becomes many orders of magnitude more difficult (as close to IMPOSSIBLE as you can ever get while climbing Mt. Improbable) to do the same thing with "mind."<br /><br /><b>Strain at a gnat; swallow a camel.</b>Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-64698133493512665902016-07-14T08:47:36.091-05:002016-07-14T08:47:36.091-05:00I was just reading on Dr. Edward Feser's blog,...I was just reading on Dr. Edward Feser's blog, and ran across this little gem embedded in a different topic:<br /><br />"<b>Consider instead the critique of the symbolic processing approach in artificial intelligence developed by philosophers like Hubert Dreyfus and John Searle. The approach in question presupposes that intelligence can be embodied entirely in explicit representations and rules, such as the symbols processed by a Turing machine and the algorithms by which they are processed. <i>And the problem with this is that the interpretation of representations and rules presupposes an intellect which does the interpreting, so that such representations and rules cannot coherently be taken to explain the existence and operation of the intellect.</i></b>"<br /><br /><a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/07/fulford-on-sola-scriptura-part-ii.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Fulford on sola scriptura, Part II</b></a><br /><br />Perhaps an idea to be explored. . .<br /><br />I've written before about the impossibility of discovering "software" per se in the hardware of a computer using physical means. No matter what means is employed (the naked eye, instrumentation based on physical measurements such as voltage, instrumentation based on interpretation such as logic analyzers, or whatever instrumentation you choose that is based on physical measurement), the functional intent and purpose (the final cause) of "software" CANNOT be determined from any physical measurement. I have given the very simple example of a single 8-bit byte of memory. The contents can be measured as voltages or as logical bits (1s and 0s). However, you CANNOT (even in principle) have any idea of how to INTERPRET that byte of data as information on the basis of the physical information alone. I give an example.<br /><br />Given the following 8-bit string representation (in 1s and 0s; I already have to supply an interpretation of the visible level), tell me what information is stored in that string:<br /><br />00111101<br /><br />(1) Is it the decimal number 61 used as a count?<br /><br />(2) Is it the ASCII representation of the character "="?<br /><br />(3) Is it part or the entirety of a machine instruction?<br /><br />(4) Does it stand alone or is it part of something else?<br /><br />NONE of these questions can be determined to be "correct" (or incorrect) strictly from any examination of this putative physical value in the absence of contextual information assigned and interpreted by the intellect that created the string with a particular meaning.<br /><br />For those of us old enough (and I AM old enough, at 68 years old) to have programmed using machine language on very primitive computers, it is painfully obvious what mischief can be created by inadvertently jumping from the program code into a section of data. The computer merrily continues on its way, totally oblivious to the fact that it is now "interpreting" the data as instructions to be executed. One of the "amusements" in earlier days was to intentionally overwrite the running code with new code (self-modifying code). Often it was done to shoehorn a big program into a very limited space. If a "core" dump was performed after the program began running, even the original programmer could not tell (interpret) what memory contents contained.<br /><br />Interpret the following sentence:<br /><br />"<b>There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.</b>"<br /><br />Have fun interpreting THAT!Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-39794865876247450392016-07-11T11:25:27.048-05:002016-07-11T11:25:27.048-05:00” On the contrary, I'd think it shows that hum...<i>” On the contrary, I'd think it shows that humans are so physical that our instincts hijack our better judgment, and it can interfere with our minds'trustworthiness.</i><br /><br />And here <i>better judgement</i> seem to indicate something non-physical which can easily be overridden by the physical, as you imply.<br /><br /><i>There's definitely something more going on than the forces of physics, but it seems to be something animal / biological.”</i><br /><br />Then you should identify and share this unknown and fifth physical force with us. You will most certainly win a Nobel prize.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.com