[drdeca]

> It's a category error to attribute intentions to algorithms because if an algorithm has intentions then so must numbers and arithmetic operations of numbers.

I don't see how that makes it a category error? Like, assuming that numbers and arithmetic operations of numbers don't have intentions, and assuming that algorithms having intentions would imply that numbers and arithmetic operations have them, afaict, we would only get the conclusion "algorithms do not have intentions", not "attributing intentions to algorithms is a category error".

Suppose we replace "numbers" with "atoms" and "computers" with "chemicals" in what you said.

This yields "As compositions of [atoms] there must be some [element (in the sense of part, not necessarily in the sense of an element of the periodic table)] in the composite with intentionality or the claim is that it is an emergent property in which case it becomes another unfounded belief in some magical quality of [chemicals] and I don't think [chemicals] have any magical qualities other than [...]." .

What about this substitution changes the validity of the argument? Is it because you do think that atoms or chemicals have "magical qualities" ? I don't think this is what you mean, or at least, you probably wouldn't call the properties in question "magical". (Though maybe you also disagree that people are comprised of atoms (That's not a jab. I would probably agree with that.)) So, let's try the original statement, but without "magical".

"As compositions of elementary operations there must be some element in the composite with intentionality or the claim is that it is an emergent property in which case it becomes another unfounded belief in some [suitable-for-emergent-intentionality] quality of computers and I don't think computers have any [suitable-for-emergent-intentionality] qualities [(though they do have properties for allowing computations)]."

If you believe that humans are comprised of atoms, and that atoms lack intentionality, and that humans have intentionality, presumably you believe that atoms have [suitable-for-emergent-intentionality] qualities.

One thing I think is relevant here, is "we have nothing showing us that there exist [x]" and "it cannot be that there exists [x]" .

Even if we have nothing to demonstrate to us that numbers-and-operations-on-them have the suitable-for-emergent-intentionality qualities, that doesn't demonstrate that they don't.

That doesn't mean we should believe that they do. If you have strong priors that they don't, that seems fine. But I don't think you've really given much of a reason that others should be convinced that they don't?

[soloist11]

I don't know what atoms and chemicals have to do with my argument but the substitutions you've made don't make sense and I would call it ill-typed. A composition of numbers is also a number but a composition of atoms is something else and not an atom so I didn't really follow the rest of your argument.

Computers have a formal theory and to say that a computer has intentions and can think would be equivalent to supplying a constructive proof (program) demonstrating conformance to a specification for thought and intention. These don't exist so from a constructive perspective it is valid to say that all claims of computers and software having intentions and thoughts are simply magical, confused, non-constructive, and ill-typed beliefs.

[skissane]

> A composition of numbers is also a number but a composition of atoms is something else and not an atom so I didn't really follow the rest of your argument.

That's not true. To give a trivial example, a set or sequence of numbers is composed of numbers but is not itself a number. 2 is a number, but {2,3,4} is not a number.

> Computers have a formal theory

They don't. Yes, there is a formal theory mathematicians and theoretical computer scientists have developed to model how computers work. However, that formal theory is strictly speaking false for real world computers – at best we can say it is approximately true for them.

Standard theoretical models of computation assume a closed system, determinism, and infinite time and space. Real world computers are an open system, are capable of indeterminism, and have strictly sub-infinite time and space. A theoretical computer and a real world computer are very different things – at best we can say that results from the former can sometimes be applied to the latter.

There are theoretical models of computation that incorporate nondeterminism. However, I'd question whether the specific type of nondeterminism found in such models, is actually the same type of nondeterminism that real world computers have or can have.

Even if you are right that a theoretical computer science computer can't have intentionality, you haven't demonstrated a real world computer can't have intentionality, because they are different things. You'd need to demonstrate that none of the real differences between the two could possibly grant one the intentionality the other lacks.

[soloist11]

> That's not true. To give a trivial example, a set or sequence of numbers is composed of numbers but is not itself a number. 2 is a number, but {2,3,4} is not a number.

That's still a number because everything in a digital computer is a number or an operation on a number. Sets are often encoded by binary bit strings and boolean operations on bitstrings then have a corresponding denotation as union, intersection, product, exponential, powerset, and so on.

[skissane]

> That's still a number because everything in a digital computer is a number or an operation on a number.

I feel like in this conversation you are equivocating over distinct but related concepts that happen to have the same name. For example, “numbers” in mathematics versus “numbers” in computers. They are different things - e.g. there are an infinite number of mathematical numbers but only a finite number of computer numbers - even considering bignums, there are only a finite number of bignums, since any bignum implementation only supports a finite physical address space.

In mathematics, a set of numbers is not itself number.

What about in digital computers? Well, digital computers don’t actually contain “numbers”, they contain electrical patterns which humans interpret as numbers. And it is a true that at that level of interpretation, we call those patterns “numbers”, because we see the correspondence between those patterns and mathematical numbers.

However, is it true that in a computer, a set of numbers is itself a number? Well, if I was storing a set of 8 bit numbers, I’d store them each in consecutive bytes, and I’d consider each to be a separate 8-bit number, not one big 8n-bit number. Of course, I could choose to view them as one big 8n-bit number - but conversely, any finite set of natural numbers can be viewed as a single natural number (by Gödel numbering); indeed, any finite set of computable or definable real numbers can be viewed as a single natural number (by similar constructions)-indeed, by such constructions even infinite sets of natural or real numbers can be equated to natural numbers, provided the set is computable/definable. However, “can be viewed as” is not the same thing as “is”. Furthermore, whether a sequence of n 8-bit numbers is n separate numbers or a single 8n-bit number is ultimately a subjective or conventional question rather than an objective one - the physical electrical signals are exactly the same in either case, it is just our choice as to how to interpret them

[soloist11]

> However, “can be viewed as” is not the same thing as “is”

Ultimate reality is fundamentally unknowable but what I said about computers and digital circuits is correct. We have a formal theory of computers and that is why we can construct them in factories. There is no such theory for people or the biosphere which is why when someone argues for intentionality or some other attribute possessed by both people and computers I discount whatever they are saying unless they can formally specify how some formal statement in a logical syntax (program) corresponds to the same attribute in people and animals.

This confusion between formal theories and informal concepts like intentionality is why I am generally wary of anyone who claims computers can think and possess intelligence. The ultimate endpoint of this line of reasoning is complete annihilation of the biosphere and its replacement with factories producing nothing but computers and power plants for shuttling electrons. The people who believe computers are a net positive might not think this way but by equating computers with people they are ultimately devaluing the irreducible complexity of what it means to be a living animal (person) in an ecology with irreducible properties and attributes.

I'm obviously not going to convince anyone who believes computers and algorithms can think and possess intelligence but it is clear to me that by elevating digital computers above biology and ecology they are devaluing their own humanity and justifying actions which will ultimately end in disaster.

[skissane]

> We have a formal theory of computers and that is why we can construct them in factories.

Formal theories and physical manufacturability are two different things, with no necessary connection with each other. People have been manufacturing tools for thousands of years without having any “formal theory” for them. People were making swords and pots and pans and furniture and carts and chariots long before the concept of “formal theory” had ever been invented. Conversely, one can easily construct formal theories of computers which are formally completely coherent and yet physically impossible to construct (such as Turing machines with oracles, or computers that can execute supertasks).

I’d even question whether formal theories of computation (Turing, Church, etc) were actually that relevant to the development of real world computers. One can imagine an alternate timeline in which computers were developed but theoretical computer science saw far less development as a discipline than in ours. The lack of theoretical development no doubt would have had some practical drawbacks at some point, but they still might have gone a long way without it. I mean, you can do a course in theoretical computer science and have no idea how to actually build a CPU, and conversely you can do a course in computer engineering and actually build a CPU yet have zero idea about what Turing machines or lambda calculus is. The theory actually has far less practical relevance than most theoreticians claim

> The ultimate endpoint of this line of reasoning is complete annihilation of the biosphere and its replacement with factories producing nothing but computers and power plants for shuttling electrons. The people who believe computers are a net positive

A very alarmist take. Personally I am at least open-minded about the possibility of an AI having human-like consciousness/intentionality, at least in theory. But even if we could build such an AI in theory, I’m not sure whether it would be a good idea in practice. And I absolutely am opposed to any proposal to destroy the biological environment and replace it with electronics. Some people may well be purveyors of mind-uploading/simulationist woo, but I’m not. Interesting philosophical speculations but no interest in making them a reality (and I think their actual technological feasibility, if it ever happens at all, is long after we are all dead)