On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is interesting although I had to interpret your comments a little bit. > Most symbolic interactions are not numerically commensurate or 'miscible' > (so to speak) so they can require a great many methodical operations in > order to understand their 'behaviors' at a relatively more global behavior. > However, I think this is a problem that can be dealt with. For one thing, > many problems can be generalized through various associative methods and > that is a trick that does work up to a point. I suspect that we will > eventually discover more sophisticated ways to mix a variety of methods of > generalization so that even when the combination of data references, > reasons, correlations and knowledge of other relations does not produce an > easily understandable object of reference, simplifications of the object can > be formed using approximations such as approximate correlations. But I > think your insight that since interactive symbolic references are not > necessarily 'continuous' in some way they may require more elaborate > methodologies to understand them is important.Jim Bromer >
I should add a disclaimer that my comment was based on assumptions that I personally don't agree with, but which I see as underlying Richard's position, which he in turn doesn't really concede... -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
