Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
That's an excellent utilitarian description. It's obviously anthropocentric. Algorithms are something we use. Performing an algorithm is something human beings do.
Nonsense.
What I described was what 'computer' used to mean - it involved people because we hadn't yet learned to offload that work onto machines.
For an algorithm to be meaningful as a physical action, seperately from human concerns - something that can be objectively described without reference to human wishes and intentions - it has to be specified in physical terms.
Nonsense.
I don't "supposedly" have a background in programming. I've demonstrated my understanding of the concepts. So if I am questioning the meaning of a very well understood term like "algorithm", it might be worth a second glance at what I'm saying to try to figure out what I'm getting at. That second glance would reveal the word "physically", which is the critical element of the question.
I hate to downplay my own importance, but my own background, beliefs and personality are really not very significant in the context of the possible creation of artificial consciousness. I don't know why they get more attention.
You have been wrong on a great many issues related to computers, computation, computability, reasoning, intelligence, and artificial intelligence (just to scratch the surface).
You have demonstrated your understanding of relevant concepts - it isn't very good.
You often do not use terms the way that the rest of us (especially professionals) do. The onus is on you to adapt, not us.