2023-09-20 08:51 UTC
@tyrell_turing@fediscience.org
The important difference is between "making a computational model of the ball throw" vs the claim that the ball throw *is* computation, which it isn't, because (a) it has no symbolic content (other than that imputed on it by your model), and (b) it is not necessarily Turing-computable (as you claim without justification; but maybe you realize that classical mechanics, standardly used to describe the ball throw, is not computable because the real numbers are not) ...
Replies (1)
-
@yoginho@spore.social 2023-09-20 08:53
@tyrell_turing@fediscience.org The second error is a simple flaw in your logic: human brains can calculate all computable functions (in theory), therefore the brain *is* a computer (equivalent to a Turing-machine). Copeland calls this the equivalence fallacy. You cite his paper, but apparently have not read or digested that part of it? The theory of computation is explicitly a theory of what *humans* can do by rote (as you write in the paper), so it is hardly a surprise that brains can do effective ...