> The difference is in the
> paper and should be non-existent of COMP is true.
Now I see your point. Thanks, I have missed it.
On 14.06.2011 01:41 Colin Hales said the following:
Hi Evgenii,
I expect you are not alone in struggling with the Natural Computation
(NC) vs Artificial Computation (AC) idea. The difference is in the
paper and should be non-existent of COMP is true. The paper then
shows a place where it can't be true hence AC and NC are different
.ie. the natural world is not computation of the Turing-machine kind(
at least to the extent needed to construct a scientist, which
includes the need to create a liar). It's all quite convoluted, but
nevertheless sufficient to help an engineer like me make a design
choice... which I have done.
I hope over time these ideas will not grate on the mind quite so
much.
cheers colin
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Colin,
Thanks for the paper. I have just browsed it. Two small notes.
I like [Turing et al., 2008]. It seems that he has passed his test
successfully.
I find term Natural Computation (NC) a bit confusing. I guess that
I understand what you means but the term Computation sounds
ambiguously, because then it is completely unclear what it means in
such a context.
Evgenii
On 07.06.2011 09:42 Colin Hales said the following:
Hi,
Hales, C. G. 'On the Status of Computationalism as a Law of
Nature', International Journal of Machine Consciousness vol. 3,
no. 1, 2011. 1-35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1793843011000613
The paper has finally been published. Phew what an epic!
cheers
Colin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
