Turing completeness does for functional people. Again though you are free to argue that an alternative theory is correct. That's why we're here, to debate which theory is correct.
Good ole Hamster putting himself back into his echo chamber.Actually, don't bother. I don't suffer people like you. Not sure how you got off the list.
Pick a horse and stay on it. One moment you are avoiding basic scientific requirements by claiming you are offering an "explanation", then the next you're back to dressing your claims up with an appeal to authority (science) and talking about theory. You aren't debating anything, you are dodging and moving the goal posts around while failing to do any kind of prove up.Originally Posted by PC2
OP was made in a specific context, teaching students. If your ... let's call it an idea for now ... has any practical meaning it needs to have observable, real world applications. Telling Johnny that he could "do it" if he just "tried harder" can be a motivational talk, but it easily gets turned into "you aren't succeeding, so you are just lazy and not trying hard enough." You keep dodging that humans are just that, human, and not even a computer can actually meet the kind of abstract model you're touting. Here is an example of how that goes with what others such as @Shadowferal and @Queen of Hamsters have pointed out about the real world: https://www.psychologicalscience.org...n-and-behavior
Teaching in the real world means that things like interest and resources can't just be blown off the way you do, but some jackass in administration can start spouting the kind of talk you are throwing around to justify his next round of budget fudging. The result is that students, real people living in a real world, get a label hung on them (lazy failure) that they usually start to believe, while their teachers end up trying to fill in gaps with their own resources.
With COVID-19 making its impact on our lives, I have decided that I shall hang in there for my remaining days, skip some meals, try to get children to experiment with making henna patterns on their skin, and plant some trees. You know -- live, fast, dye young, and leave a pretty copse. I feel like I may not have that quite right.
I don't understand why you keep bringing up science. The study of the mind is inherently about a 1st person phenomenology which means it's a non-scientific discipline. Science only deals with the study of things relating to the 3rd person perspective.
Regarding learning and child raising the #1 most important factor is the cultural surrounding that the child grows up in. Especially what people they have access to and how much knowledge they have and how good they are at guiding the child through the learning process. There's no such thing as an inherently "lazy person" but people do have some form of free will so that means we can't discount 'personal effort' entirely.
Last edited by PC2; 2019-12-21 at 06:21 AM.
There is part of the problem. Turing didn't become famous as a cook. You think you are discussing human minds, but you don't see the roots of your assertions are in non-human models. That is something that gets discussed in the context of the Chinese Room Argument.Originally Posted by PC2
[Side note for anyone who wants to refresh their memory: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/]
With COVID-19 making its impact on our lives, I have decided that I shall hang in there for my remaining days, skip some meals, try to get children to experiment with making henna patterns on their skin, and plant some trees. You know -- live, fast, dye young, and leave a pretty copse. I feel like I may not have that quite right.
I don't even know what this means. lol
That relates to John Searle's and Connal's position which is largely in opposition and incompatible with my position on this matter. I think the arguments don't make any sense and I don't even know how learning would work under that theory, nor how it would relate to human limitations.That is something that gets discussed in the context of the Chinese Room Argument.
[Side note for anyone who wants to refresh their memory: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/]
Last edited by PC2; 2019-12-21 at 07:51 AM.
Quod erat demonstrandumOriginally Posted by PC2
With COVID-19 making its impact on our lives, I have decided that I shall hang in there for my remaining days, skip some meals, try to get children to experiment with making henna patterns on their skin, and plant some trees. You know -- live, fast, dye young, and leave a pretty copse. I feel like I may not have that quite right.
No, this is kind of like saying I studied astrology and I didn't fully understand it therefor I hit the limits of my understanding. There are many things you could try to learn about that are inherently nonsense and trying to glean knowledge from nonsense theories is impossible.
That's utterly false. EVERYONE has limitations. Being physical, mental, ethical/moral, etc.
That phrase is the same as the abhorrent mantra "the poor are poor because they chose so".
Not everyone can be/do anything, no matter how hard they try.
You don't go to a hospital and say "hey, you don't heal because you don't try harder".
You don't say to a mentally challenged people that "if you try hard, you can go to MIT"
You don't say a tetraplegic that he can climb the Everest if he tries hard enough.
I'm starting to think that the people who really belive that phrase are idiots or psychopath
People do have limits. This is painfully obvious for anyone with a bit of life experience. Even a lack of motivation is a limit in some sense, as is time for all of us not to mention hard physical limitations. Most people probably don't reach their actual limits for any given topic, but many reach the diminishing returns of their capability within a field/topic.
You are welcome, Metzen. I hope you won't fuck up my underground expansion idea.
Yes for physical limits but no for mental limits. For any given subject that you talk about and try to draw a line in which a functional person could never learn anything above that line the person can always learn one more concept above that line, given enough time and effort and personal interest.
Watching someone so enthusiastically use themselves as proof is amazing.