[Noisebridge-discuss] Philosophy and Computer Language Question
jim
jim at well.com
Sun Jan 1 02:58:18 UTC 2012
As to the possibilities of computer "tho't", per Will's note
that CS is best at concrete math, sets, and category theory, the
PyPy implementation of Python suggests an idea I find interesting:
(preamble) the primary implementation of Python is written in
C, which is one of the most primitive and therefore fastest
computer languages.
The PyPy folks had a vision that if they use Python to write
a Python just-in-time (JIT) compiler, the expressivity that the
Python language allows is sufficiently powerful that the PyPy
compiler will, given some time for getting the wrinkles out, be
significantly faster than a Python compiler/interpreter written
in C. I.e. while simple crude pedal-to-the-metal code is very
fast, it can be beaten by clever algorithms. The latest releases
of PyPy seem to bear this out: code that drives a JIT compiler
written in Python, which itself has been written in C, in some
cases runs faster than it would if it were driving a JIT Python
compiler written directly in C.
(the interesting idea) seems to me that given the right
structures (i.e. basic algorithms) so that a body of code can
learn , the body of code will necessarily develop its own
algorithms that will at some (relatively early) point in its
self-maturation process be incomprehensible to humans, and that
will be a starting off point for increasingly powerful
algorithmic "thoughts".
Given free rein, such a self-directed body of code would
probably quickly explore realms of thought that would have no
bearing on human thinking as well as developments of thought
that might profoundly alter the development of human ideas
(gasp for air).
an entertaining issue might be: given the incomprehensible
underpinnings of a seemingly useful idea, to what extent
should we trust that idea, and how could we defend against
unforeseeable implications that might ultimately be to human
disadvantage.
another entertaining adjunct issue is to add the concept
that the body of code was capable of self-awareness, i.e. its
awareness of its own identity.
....well, this gets far afield of the original topic....
On Sat, 2011-12-31 at 17:10 -0800, Will Sargent wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Caleb Grayson
> <calebgrayson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well.. I'm not sure. I'm more of a philosopher than a computer
> scientist.
>
>
> In Whitehead's Process Philosophy he said everything in
> reality is a function or process that takes in the entire
> universe at every moment and spits out Actual Occasions that
> become apart of the Creative Advance, the history of
> functional results in time and space.
>
>
> ...wouldn't Physics be better at answering the question of time and
> space?
>
> There is a question as to what time an space are. It is m
> suspicion that functions and their solutions are not in time
> and space, but time and space are in functions and their
> solutions. Why would times and spaces for which nothing is
> happening be generated by an efficient system?
> CS, if I understand correctly, time and space have to be
> predefined by establishing their numerical domains first.
> I'm hoping CS in its attempt to simulate reality can give
> inside into it.
>
>
> CS can only model reality by simulation. What it's really good at is
> concrete math, sets and category theory -- telling you what answers
> are possible and which are not, which systems can be built and which
> cannot, which operations are possible and which are not. There's an
> interesting paper that shows all computer programs are formal logic
> proofs, and you can do fun things by breaking out of a restricted
> environment to another -- escaping into a wierd machine -- but
> ultimately it's always the rules of the machine as defined by the
> chip. Whatever world we define in there is simulated, and isn't going
> to break out of the instruction pointer of the CPU running it.
>
>
> Of course CS being a rational/material system has no place to
> calculate for spirit/soul outside of its system which
> Whitehead does allow for.
>
>
> Not at all -- rational / material systems can calculate for soul.
> According to the best neurological analysis, the amount of calculated
> soul is 0.
>
>
> http://edge.org/3rd_culture/sapolsky09/sapolsky09_index.html
>
>
> Will.
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list