Jochen,
I CRINGE when anybody calls me an expert, but I have to admit that in my last
job, I served as an evolutionary psychologist. Before that, I was a
comparative psychologist, ethologist, and sociobiologists, more or less in that
order. Unfortunately, any of these roles would designat
more re eventual chaos in classical mechanics: Rich Murray 2011.02.19
fromRoger Critchlow
to The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
dateSat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:19 AM
subject Re: [FRIAM] does classical mechanics always fail to predict or
retrodict for 3 or more Newtonian g
Jochen,
I'm not Nick, but we usually think pretty similarly about these issues, so I
will attempt a short answer:
The most obvious problem with Humphrey's hypothesis is that lots of things that
are not humans are conscious.
The problems with Pinker's hypothesis are much more awkward to explain. O
Nick,
you are an expert in evolutionary psychology.
Do you agree with Humphrey's hypotheses that
human consciousness is an adaptation to living
in a society of selves and Pinker's similar idea
that language is an adaptation to the cognitive
niche? see http://bit.ly/dOeRLZ
-J.
"A Digital Orrery," James Applegate, M. Douglas, Y. Gursel, P Hunter, C.
Seitz, Gerald Jay Sussman, in IEEE Transactions on Computers, *C-34*, No. 9,
pp. 822-831, September 1985, reprinted in Lecture Notes in Physics #267 --
Use of supercomputers in stellar dynamics, Springer Verlag, 1986.
But als
With particular regard to computer simulations of
celestial mechanics, Gerry Sussman wrote a paper
sometime in (IIRC) the late 1970s, about the
ultimate instability of the solar system (one
of the classical motivations for celestial
mechanics in general and the 3-body problem
in particular).
I c