[FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

Hi,Glen,

Careful.  Isn't the formulation "inner world" entirely contradictory?  

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:50 PM
To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

However, I think we can come up with a (maybe someday) testable hypothesis based on hidden states. In principle, if EricC's principle is taken seriously, the inner world of a black box device will be *completely* represented on its surface (ala the holographic principle). Any information not exhibited by a black box's *behavior* will be lost/random. 

This implies something about the compressibility and information content of the black box's behavior, right? 

On 5/5/20 10:38 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> This does not advance an argument against the possibility of a computer thinking — merely an assertion that "behavior" is not a valid basis upon which to argue that they do.


--
☣ uǝlƃ

.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/