Vladimir Nesov wrote:
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...
And, sadly, none of this really addresses anything I said ;-).
Oh well.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
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
