^TagComputation

^{Type
post

Author
Michael Egnor

Date
March 30, 2020

Categorized
Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy of Mind

Tagged
Ada Lovelace, Computation, Jeffrey Shallit}

Jeffrey Shallit, a computer scientist, doesn’t know how computers work

_{Patterns in computers only have meaning when they are caused by humans programming and using them.} _{Michael Egnor

March 30, 2020

Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy of Mind}

Materialism is a kind of intellectual disability that afflicts even the well-educated. To put it simply, machines don’t and can’t think. Dr. Shallit’s wristwatch doesn’t know what time it is. Dr. Shallit’s iPod doesn’t enjoy the music it plays or listen to his phone calls. His television doesn’t like or dislike movies. And his computer doesn’t, and can’t, think.

The Mind Is the Opposite of a Computer

_{Matthew Cobb, a materialist, only scratches the surface when he explains why your brain is not a computer} _{Michael Egnor

March 5, 2020

Neuroscience, Philosophy of Mind}

Mental activity always has meaning—every thought is about something. Computation, by contrast, always lacks meaning in itself. A word processing program doesn’t care about the opinion that you’re expressing when you use it. In fact, what makes computation so useful is that it doesn’t have its own meaning. Because the mind always has meaning and computation never does, the mind is the opposite of computation.

Edward Feser on Neurobabble and Remembering the Right Questions

_{Edward Feser dismantles many of the simplistic reads of contemporary neuroscience} _{Michael Egnor and Edward Feser

August 15, 2019}

Michael Egnor hosts a captivating conversation with Edward Feser, Aristotelian, prolific blogger, and philosopher of mind. Neurobabble and pop science dismissals of the mind, final causes, abstract thought, and free will each face Feser’s piercing critique.

Neurosurgeon Outlines Why Machines Can’t Think

_{The hallmark of human thought is meaning, and the hallmark of computation is indifference to meaning.} _{Michael Egnor

July 17, 2018

Artificial Intelligence, Natural Intelligence, Neuroscience, Philosophy of Mind}

A cornerstone of the development of artificial intelligence is the pervasive assumption that machines can, or will, think. Watson, a question-answering computer, beats the best Jeopardy players, and anyone who plays chess has had the humiliation of being beaten by a chess engine. Does this mean that computers can think as well as (or better than) humans think? Read More ›