

Dennis P Waters
6.7K posts

@dpwaters
Author, *Behavior and Culture in One Dimension*; Founder, https://t.co/vFmKjY1CBJ, https://t.co/UGdugZRhIq, https://t.co/8zXuzpeFWF, https://t.co/5Qmx9GDQZV; Lichenologist, Rutgers CHRB & DEENR





Turns out a foul ball can be a wolf in sheep's clothing 🐑 @GoEmperors is bringing the herd mentality on Agriculture Night:

"Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, which I'm sure generativists have read."



Head Coach @amicker23 Is Here To Stay!



At minimum, computation is a reliable transformation of symbols according to a finite set of rules. That already makes it narrower than "whatever happens in the universe." A rock falls, a cell metabolizes, a storm forms. Not all causation is computation./2 complexitycat.org/posts/what-com…


Imagine a hypothetical intelligent species that is incapable of sensations. They are born, need food and water, reproduce, and die like we do, but none of these provide them with any sensations whatsoever. Let's assume as axiomatic that, despite lacking feelings as motivators, this species nonetheless chooses to exist, have children, and thus exist over time. And during that time they develop a language that is strictly logical. Because they lack any emotions to distract them from consistent logically coherent thinking, they develop a language as perfectly consistent and coherent as our model logics and mathematics. Their language is pure math, and they use it every day. Now, it'd be absolutely absurd to say that, for instance, when they describe a planet revolving around a star, that their descriptions actually supervene on the planet and star themselves, that their descriptions are somehow more "primary" or "real" or "true" than the actual planet and star observed. So then why do so many people think mathematics is anything more than just a language, nothing more and nothing less?






