Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: Re: Understanding you-folks
Seems odd: this is number 70 in this thread, all to explain automata? Really?!
My guess is the book is not the best start on understanding Turing Machines,
but heck, its not a book about religion
On 07/13/2016 08:28 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> Seems odd: this is number 70 in this thread, all to explain automata?
> Really?! My guess is the book is not the best start on understanding Turing
> Machines, but heck, its not a book about religion, right?
Well, it's a continuation of the conversa
Seems odd: this is number 70 in this thread, all to explain automata?
Really?! My guess is the book is not the best start on understanding Turing
Machines, but heck, its not a book about religion, right?
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:18 AM, glen ☢ wrote:
>
> Yes, I think so; except the goals need no
Yes, I think so; except the goals need not be underspecified or contradictory.
The condition (or action or assertion) made by one of the anticipatory agents
within the system can be an unambiguous member of the set defined by the
policy. The loopiness comes in because that condition is define
Glen wrote:
1) Rosen: loopiness/closure,
[..]
(1) has to do with higher order operations. A variable takes on meaning when
(partially) convolved into an anticipatory agent ... some process that
expects/anticipates the future.
I'm not sure if this is what you are getting at, but wo
ropella
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 3:38 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: Re: Understanding you-folks
>
>
> Heh, to be as clear as possible, there were 4 questions in the OP and
> several follow-up questions, summarized
-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ep ropella
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 3:38 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: Re: Understanding you-folks
Heh, to be as clear as possible, there were 4 questions in the OP and several
follow-up questions
I agree completely!
On 07/07/2016 03:11 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I'm claiming that a universal computer is a good way to normalize the forms and
to check that the manipulations between the forms are sound. The point is to
track what the special purpose machines are doing, not to do it. The
"It's interesting and meaningful to ask whether or not computers can do the
math humans do. I think the answer keeps coming up "yes" ... but people
smarter than me are not convinced. So, we shouldn't be stubbornly
reductionist. It hurts nobody to let them have the distinction ... at least
fo
On 07/07/2016 02:11 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I don't understand why you connect special purpose devices with paper math vs.
computation. I claim the problem with paper math is that 1) the former does not carry
or enforce correctness checks, 2) it is not put in context -- things are pulled ou
"OK. But you did express that you thought the distinction (between paper math
and computation) isn't meaningful (at least not in perpetuity). Yet you admit
that (in perpetuity) we should preserve the distinction at least for the sake
of efficiency/performance. You have to admit that can seem
OK. But you did express that you thought the distinction (between paper math
and computation) isn't meaningful (at least not in perpetuity). Yet you admit
that (in perpetuity) we should preserve the distinction at least for the sake
of efficiency/performance. You have to admit that can seem
m] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 1:48 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: Re: Understanding you-folks
But what you're arguing for is essentially the idea that all special-purpose
devices (should not can) be replaced by
But what you're arguing for is essentially the idea that all special-purpose
devices (should not can) be replaced by universal computers. That's
unreasonable. It makes good engineering and scientific sense to divvy up types
of computation. The distinction in the question of whether the kind
Heh, to be as clear as possible, there were 4 questions in the OP and several
follow-up questions, summarized below. I think the additional ideas on
computation were (mostly) addressing the follow-up questions, particularly the
_exploration_ of the idea that not all inference is computational.
Nick,
Owen asks:
> has the OP (original post) been satisfied?
Has the this email thread answered your original question what an Accept
state is? And why it is called an Accept state?
Are we in an accept or reject state. Or like many threads is this
non-halting?
-S
___
``Hence, we'll end up with at least 2 types of computation, anyway, the one
called "living systems" versus the purely mechanical ... even if, in full
reduction, they are fundamentally the same kind. So, we may as well allow the
distinction now and see where it takes us. ''
When the result
Just to calibrate: has the OP been satisfied?
I *think* so, we discussed FSM's discussing their input string and their
final state and whether that was the designated accept state.
And tho a Turing Machine is more than a FSM, the vocabulary of states,
input strings and so on should answer the OP.
Hm. I can't shake the feeling you're relying on some ambiguity in "meaningful
distinction". If you admit distinctions in things like domain knowledge,
correctness, verified code, tolerances, sensitivities, etc., then why not admit
there are meaningful distinctions in _types_ of computation?
"Where does vernacular "computation" stop and this high-falutin fancy-pants
"computation" begin? The same sort of question occurs in questions about the
neural correlates of consciousness."
I don't buy there is a meaningful distinction -- I mean one that should be
preserved -- between those wh
I don't disagree with you. But the question is less about whether any part of "an
answer" is definable as computation and more about a value judgement on the results
(or inputs) of any particular computation. If there is such a thing in the universe as a
non-computational process (oracle) th
"(1) has to do with higher order operations. A variable takes on meaning when
(partially) convolved into an anticipatory agent ... some process that
expects/anticipates the future. (2) A variable takes on meaning when it
interacts with the milieu (probably bound by a light cone). And (3) a va
Seems my other email address is jammed up ... made it to the archives, though.
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:51:13 -0700
From: glen ☣
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Well, we're in some rarefied
23 matches
Mail list logo
