Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

> Thanks, Marcus. > > How often are proofs with errors published in refereed articles or > textbooks? Some years ago, when you guys in Santa Fe were reading Ruben Hersh's "18 Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics", I took the opportunity to download a copy for myself. Assuming you(-a

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Another example in different domain is Coq. Scientists often aren't very good about reproducibility. Recently, the psychology community has had a pound of flesh taken, but I'd argue it is a fundamental problem. Good enough to publish isn't really that high a bar. Marcus On 4/27/19, 7

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 12:52:02AM +, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Russell writes: > > < However, conversely, there appear to interesting results that indicate P=NP > for random oracle machines. There is some controversy over this, though, and > personally, I've never been able to follow the proo

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

> Russell writes: > > < However, conversely, there appear to interesting results that indicate > P=NP for random oracle machines. There is some controversy over this, > though, and personally, I've never been able to follow the proofs in the > area :). > > > Minimally, why is LaTeX the preferred fo

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Thanks, Marcus. How often are proofs with errors published in refereed articles or textbooks? Hywel told me about a case in which Lincoln Wolfenstein got the sign wrong in the conclusion of a long article about neutrinos. A result was that his article was cited much more than a typical one in ph

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

One reason it could be hard to follow something is because an implication is just not there, or notation is used in a contradictory fashion. These are that a computer just won’t tolerate. At least convince a computer that conclusions follow from premises and then I’ll bother to spend hours o

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

I'm not following. What has LaTex vs Mathematica got to do with the proofs in question? --- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-991

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Russell writes: < However, conversely, there appear to interesting results that indicate P=NP for random oracle machines. There is some controversy over this, though, and personally, I've never been able to follow the proofs in the area :). > Minimally, why is LaTeX the preferred format and not

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:28:41AM -0600, Frank Wimberly wrote: > > Lee, Surely someone has developed probabilistic Turing Machines which can, > very > rarely, make errors.  I am ignorant of the field since 1972 when I took a > course which used Hopcroft and Ullman as a text. > > Nick, I agree t

Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow

I remember part of mine. The anesthesia was a bit *too* light. At one point I felt the instrument in me. I opened my eyes and grunted. They gave me a bit more anesthesia. On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:35 AM Frank Wimberly wrote: > No. But people who are under light anesthesia such as during a > c

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Nick: "It’s not that I think that self-conscious (etc.) doesn’t exist; it’s that I think of it as a material relation." What do you mean by a material relation? Nick: "anywhere, anytime, etc., that material relation can be generated, there consciousness exists." Is there something to that statem

Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow

No. But people who are under light anesthesia such as during a colonoscopy sometimes talk. I don't think they remember that. --- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profil

Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow

Oh, yes. We agree that I was unconscious. And if you had been there, you would have experienced my unconsciousness. But did I? I think a person who adopts your position has to say, “No.” Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University

Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow

Yes, you were unconscious. As you know, I had that experience a few days ago. Frank --- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918

Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow

Hi Frank, The problem is that one has immediately to ask, what is the contrast class of experiencing consciousness? Experiencing non-consciousness? I think for your line of thinking, where consciousness is direct, that’s an oxymoron. For my line of thinking, when I woke up from my surger

Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow

Thanks, Jon, for that thoughtful post. Mostly I hope that others will comment on it. I guess it comes down to two questions: Grant, for a moment, that knowing is a relation between two entities. Then, we can ask: What is the knowing relation? And, what sorts of competencies are require

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Gosh, Russ; thanks. Really! It does help to be ignorant. Talking to you guys is like wandering in a field of wonders. (Or is that wondering in a field of wanders? I can never tell. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Or implement a Mersenne Twister with a period of 219937 – 1 and inject some conditionals in the machine to make the `mistakes’. That’s a distinction without a difference to a behaviorist. From: Friam on behalf of Frank Wimberly Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Da

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

So, Lee, you ask: So, Nick, why are you asking what Turing machines think, instead of what modern computers think? (Be careful how you answer that...) So, I am trying to think like an honest monist. It seems to me that a Turing Machine is a monist event processing system. All you got is

Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow

Jon writes: < For instance, in the heyday of analogue synthesizers, musicians would slog these machines from city to city, altitude to altitude, desert to rain-forested coast and these machines would notoriously respond in kind. Their finicky capacitors would experience the change and changes in

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Indeed, Frank. We behaviorists call that abDUCKtion. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mail

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Lee, Surely someone has developed probabilistic Turing Machines which can, very rarely, make errors. I am ignorant of the field since 1972 when I took a course which used Hopcroft and Ullman as a text. Nick, I agree that your questions are charming. Your humanity is clearly seen. By the way, it

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Nick, One of the most attractive things about your posts is how charming they are. They are so well written! Thank you for keeping the discussion at such a civilized and enjoyable level -- even when I don't agree with you. -- Russ Abbott Professor, Computer Science California State University, Lo

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Frank writes: > I would hate to have to demonstrate that a modern computer is an instance > of a Turing Machine. Among other things they usually have multiple > processors as well as memory hierarchies. But I suppose it could be done, > theoretically. First a passage from a chapter I contributed

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Glen, I missed this question the first time. Mostly, we didn't discuss the "knowing" relation at all. There was (to me, anyway) a very interesting conversation about the importance of "stories" in scientific thought. It started when I got quite testy about the over-use of "story" or "nar

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

I would hate to have to demonstrate that a modern computer is an instance of a Turing Machine. Among other things they usually have multiple processors as well as memory hierarchies. But I suppose it could be done, theoretically. --- Frank Wimberly My memoir: htt

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Frank, Well, that’s a little blunter than I feel comfortable with because it identifies “answering questions” with consciousness. I like better, “Imagine a computer, however complicated you care to make it, however skilled in its execution of human behaviors in human contexts, can such a c

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Lee, Remember, I and only I, am to blame for raising this question. There ain't no "circles" here. Belelagued as I am, I migh persist and ask you, "Ok, what does an "instantiation" of a Turing Machine Know?" Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark Univ

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

I will channel Nick based on our conversation yesterday. "A computer is a Turing machine and it can answer questions."* I apologize, Nick, if that's not your position. *Alexa, Siri, Hey Google --- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimber

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

Maybe I've missed it, but has no one pointed out that a "Turing Machine" is a mathematical formalism? I may be a stick in the mud, but I refuse to extend the definition of "know" so far as to make "A Turing Machine knows [something]" a meaningful statement. You might as well ask what a Goedel Enu

Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

That's the second time in a week that that quote from the Christian Scripture (aka New Testament) has come up in my online conversations. Is it a divine message for me? Seriously, I think Russ and I have nearly the same view of consciousness. A view that I have been trying to describe to Nick for