I missed the implication people are finding in Rosen's idea of non-computable
models. Can someone offer some examples of instances where that matters. It
sounds like it means something other than 'insoluable'. Could it perhaps
include 'internalized' so therefore not accessible?
Phil
Sent
All,
Ok, so my questions about Rosen are of a really fundamental nature. You guys
are already WAY down the track.
In fact, could somebody clarify, in terms that a former english major would
understand, what it means to say,
organisms are closed to efficient causation.
I read it and I
OK, I admit it .. I find the book kinda fascinating. This review by
Jaron Lanier, is quite enthusiastic:
http://tinyurl.com/2kb5f8
Has anyone on the list actually read most of the critter? It's a bit
daunting at 1099 pages!
-- Owen
The price change reflects, I suspect, inflation and runs over the budget.
However, if you donate $400 to the cause, that buys one device that goes to
some kid in the developing world and you, sir, receive the second to use as
you will. So it's a $200 per unit cost.
I have one, and while I
Carver --
The price didn't get down to the targeted USD 100 -- it's closer to USD 200,
which is why the G1G1 program is USD 400 (2 OLPC @ USD 200 each, one for you,
one for a child in the OLPC program).? The OLPC Foundation is no doubt getting
a few bucks to cover some administrative costs,
There is a school of thought called strong ALife, stating that
computational systems can be alive, given the right program. It is
analogous (but not equivalent to) the better known strong AI
position, sometimes known as computationalism.
Rosen's result essentially says that strong ALife is
On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 11:32:33AM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
All,
Ok, so my questions about Rosen are of a really fundamental nature. You guys
are already WAY down the track.
In fact, could somebody clarify, in terms that a former english major would
understand, what it means
Dear Owen,
I am actually reading it at the moment, I am at around page 300. It is
my second go, the first one was before I had CompSci Math under my belt
and I got lost.
This time is much better, although he of course employs a rather broad
sweep of mathematics, most of which you will only
Dear Nick,
have you read this?:
http://www.panmere.com/rosen/closed_eff.htm#en01
and this:
http://www.panmere.com/rosen/mhout/msg00412.html
I think this clears it up - the concept is not so mysterious after all ;-)
I think this organisms are closed to efficient causation is just a
On Dec 30, 2007, at 3:05 PM, Günther Greindl wrote:
Dear Owen,
I am actually reading it at the moment, I am at around page 300. It is
my second go, the first one was before I had CompSci Math under my
belt
and I got lost.
This time is much better, although he of course employs a rather
Nick, what got my interest is the similarity of meaning between 'closed
to efficient causation' and 'have their own behavior', the property of
physical organisms we constantly have to remind ourselves of whenever
dealing with organisms...
Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·.
11 matches
Mail list logo
