> > > > 2) It is based on Sequential Interaction Machines, rather than > > Multi-Stream Interaction Machines, which means it might lose out on > > expressiveness as talked about here. > > > > http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/pw/papers/bcj1.pdf > > I began to read the paper, but it was mostly incomprehensible to me. > The terms and grammar were legitimate, but I couldn't translate the > claims to any workable model of reality -- I actually expected to see > Sokal mentioned as co-author -- but upon googling I found the > following paper in response, which in comparison was quite > comprehensible. > > <http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~greg/publications/cm.cj07.pdf<http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/%7Egreg/publications/cm.cj07.pdf> > > > > I'd be interested in knowing whether (and how) you think the response > paper gets it wrong. >
FYI, I think the response paper gets it right. This is very similar to a debate I had with George Kampis in the early 1990's, in reference to his "component system" model of self-organizing systems which he claimed to embody uncomputability. I argued that it didn't really. This material was in my 1994 book Chaotic Logic. I had the same argument with some supporters of Robert Rosen's approach to systems theory more recently. Turing machines are a very bad conceptual model of many kinds of intuitive computation; but even so they seem to be capable of simulating any kind of intuitive computation, at least attempts to show otherwise seem to have failed so far. I note that I consider non-well-founded sets a very interesting choice of model for many aspects of AI systems. Just because TM's are a valid model of software systems doesn't mean they're the best or most useful model in any given case. -- Ben G ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=63782621-c16d78
