Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 11/24/04 

Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:29:41 +0000

In article <41a3ef28$0$576$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
tchow@lsa.umich.edu writes
>In article <ZDPod.21741$zx1.19672@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
>Stephen Harris <cyberguard1048-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[Re: distrust of computer-assisted proofs]
>>I thought there were cases of theorems considered to be proven that
>>were later discovered not to be proven, because the computer was
>>programmed in error? So how do you know for sure.
>
>There are also cases of theorems considered to be proven that were later
>discovered to have erroneous proofs, where no computer was involved, and
>the only error involved was human error.
>
>The attitude of most mathematicians nowadays is that every proof has some
>risk of being wrong. The computer-assisted part of a proof, if properly
>managed, tends to be *less* likely to have errors than the "human" part.
>(Not that everyone properly manages their computer-assisted proofs.
>Then again, not everyone properly manages their non-computer-assisted
>proofs either.)
>
>The dissatisfaction with computer-assisted proofs stems mostly from the
>feeling that they don't give a lot of insight.

This is a point which has been elaborated at some length within c.a.p
over the years in the explication of the empirical, fallibilistic nature
of the extensional stance. Sadly, the most vociferous detractors clearly
have not grasped what the banality (and ultimately intensionalism or
mentalism) of analyticity means for GOFAI (and more widely, for so
called cognitive "science"). Instead, these "true believers" cling to an
anachronistic (veiled mono or pluralistic deistic metaphysics whilst
clearly demonstrating that they simply don't understand what they're
objecting to. This ignorance has been empirically demonstrated time
after time with each and every one of them, usually to no avail. Which
is why I begin "Fragments" with the three quotes that I do (and why one
of the living luminaries in the field was awarded a Nobel a couple of
years ago). The facts are there for all to see. These folk just ignore
them and keep deluding themselves, solipsistically denigrating precisely
what they should be trying to come to grips with - namely, how
epistemology or the theory of science has been naturalised as radical,
or evidential behaviourism. The last century will, I predict be looked
back upon by future generations with some consternation, as they will
see how, especially in its latter part, hoards of apparently educated
folk, got the temporal order of "cognitivism" and "behaviourism"
completely the wrong way round, not for rational reasons, but for
entirely irrational "politically correct" reasons.

In a nutshell, they confabulate what they don't understand, with what
they don't agree with (or "like"). 

-- 
David Longley
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm