Pei Wang wrote: > Again, I'm not saying that NARS is not a TM in any sense, but > that it is not > a TM at the questing-answering level. As I said in the paper, if you > consider the life-long history of input and output of the whole > system, NARS > is a TM. Also, if you check each individual inference step, NARS > is also a > TM. However, when we talk about the "computability" and "computational > complexity" of a problem/question, it is at neither of the two > levels (it is > shorter than the whole life, but longer than a single step). It > is at this > level NARS is not a TM (and not merely "doesn't LOOK like a TM").
Thank you for the very clear formulation, Pei!! So let's look at NARS over the time-interval [s,t] corresponding to the answering of an individual question... Over this time-interval "The NARS program plus its internal state at the time point s" is still modelable as a Turing machine, is it not? -- Ben ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
