On Dec 19, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
I'm not clear how you came to the conclusion that I was discussing an 'algorithmic system'.
You, like the rest of us, are incapable of discussing anything else. Email cannot carry non-algorithmic ideas or concepts. Just because you do not consider your system "algorithmic" does not mean that it is not. Nature is algorithmic, your chip is algorithmic, everything is algorithmic. That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
If you really understood the implications of your assertion, you would not have wasted your time trying to explain it to us. Seriously, you should think *really hard* about what you have asserted in your last several posts, because the set of assertions you make are transparently internally inconsistent, never mind that you play fast and loose with the definitions of the terms you are using to get around pesky theoretical restrictions.
There seems to be sufficient available evidence to doubt that 'cognition is computation'.
There seems to be sufficient available evidence to doubt that you understand 'computation' well enough to make this judgement.
It is not so much that I understand everything you are talking about, but that the parts are I *do* understand are quite wrong on their own.
Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
