|
|
|
|
|
|
by sweetdreamerit
1479 days ago
|
|
|
> I don't think using intuitive associations with words helps clarify things
Sincere question: do you think that "think using intuitive associations with words" can be safely translated to "compute using intuitive associations with words"?
I don't think so. Therefore, even if thinking is also computing, reducing thinking to boolean algebra is a form of reductionism that ignores a number of emergent properties of (human) thinking. |
|
|
The intuitive model associated with some variable/word as a concept relates to other structures/models/systems that it interfaces with. Just because the operator that accesses these models with rather vague keys (words) has no clear picture of what exactly is being computed on the surface, doesn't mean that the totality of the process is not computation. It just means that the emergent properties are not mapped into the semantic space which the operator (our attention mechanisms) operates on. From my understanding, the totality I just referred to is a graph-space, it doesn't escape mathematics. Then again, I can't know or claim to do so.