On 14 Aug, 02:18, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/8/14 Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>:

> If we take 'sufficiently' to the limit I suppose I must agree.  But as
> before, in terms of stuffy ontology, any digital emulation - if that's
> what we're still discussing - is a model, not the stuff modelled, and
> hence wouldn't meet any such criterion of sufficiency.  If we accept
> for the sake of argument a stuffy TM as equivalent to a stuffy brain,
> then what we're asked to accept here is that - although emulated
> bricks are no good for stuffy house building - stuffy neurons are just
> great for stuffy brain building.  But why isn't a stuffy TM running a
> computation just a stuffy TM running a computation: WYSIWYG isn't it?

The standard response is that cogitation is one of a special subset
of tasks where the gap between simualtion and realisation vanishes.
Simulated flying isn't flying, but simuilated chess *is* chess.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to