tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post8084617656107530571..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Review of Jeremy Naydler's In the shadow of the machine: the prehistory of the computer and the evolution of consciousnessBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-88104390658477328942018-10-12T17:36:02.081+01:002018-10-12T17:36:02.081+01:00One thing that is essential is understanding the d...One thing that is essential is understanding the difference between the type of conceptual framework required to <i>invent</i> a technology and the conceptual framework necessary to be <i>impressed</i> by that technology.<br /><br />These are not the same, and in some cases may be contradictory. In those cases where one implies (or could be called a contained subset) of the other, it is the concepts required to invent technology that is a subset of those that will lead to being impressed with the result. But much invention takes place in the conceptual space where the invention could be regarded as inconsequential even by the inventor, and no capacity of invention can be logically derived from the fact that a given mindset would find that invention impressive.<br /><br />To be aware of the technology of modern computers at the level of a <i>competent</i> programmer or engineer is to be ever presently aware of the immutable fact that it is <i>impossible</i> to think like a computer because computers do not think or carry out any activity that can be usefully analogized to thought. To one who <i>understands</i> the technology at the engineering level rather than the user interface, "think like a computer" simply means to <i>not</i> think at all.<br /><br />The dream of inventing a way for a computer to carry out some kind of thought process is just that, a dream. It has not happened. Not that all such processes have turned out to be <i>useless</i>, but that they have not been <i>thought</i> regardless of how useful they might be.<br /><br />Of course, many humans <i>don't</i> think, at least not very often. And this is in some degree a result of civilization, since one of the measures of civilization is making it possible for people to survive without <i>needing</i> to think. But even in a state of nature there is room in the typical human society for at least some people who generally don't think (and whose thoughts are not expected to ever be useful). It isn't a complete novelty of the computer age. But it is unlikely there have ever been so many people who unthinkingly <i>assume</i> that they think (and do so <i>usefully</i>) when in fact they do not.Chiu ChunLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519192610708043962noreply@blogger.com