[Noisebridge-discuss] Philosophy and Computer Language Question

[Brian Morris]

Possibly of related interest, I have just started reading this book (have a
pdf version)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CHwQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FDiscovering-Artificial-Economics-Agents-Economies%2Fdp%2F0813397707&ei=RRQBT-zqBO7WiALJ96W7Dg&usg=AFQjCNFqzyqZV94AXY0AyEoiGTNTDALxRg&sig2=kY9ibzakHtSVI2Tb1vXYgg

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 6:58 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:

>
>
>    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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20120101/8363e75d/attachment-0003.html>