Bruno, I don't claim to follow your discussion with Colin in 'good'
understanding, but there was a sentence to which I ask some explanation:

*"I study just the hypothesis that the brain is Turing emulable."*
Do you mean 'brain' as the *physical tissue-mass* (not likely), or the *
brainfunction *as 'mentality' into the summation of what we try to use?
Do you mean 'Turing' as the presently used embryonic binary adding machine,
or the universal machine - what we (us) try to emulate?

I do not think the  1st part of the 1st Q gets a yes, just as the 2nd Q is
also likely to be anchored in the 2nd part.

In which case instead of saying something, like *"AI is digitally
computable"* I may paraphrase the idea in my primitive wording:

*"We may suppose to be able to compute (~understand) whatever is in store to
be understood"   *

What I would hold a bit exaggerated considering that our 'universal
database' (the wholeness of the existence (~nature) ) MAY(?) include lots of
domains so far not absorbed into our working personal mental capabilities
(beyond Colin's mini solipsism, D.Bohm's explicate, R. Rosen's
system-model?) and so our 'computing' is far from being able to match the
universal machine's. Unless, of course, you may include into the 'emulable'
the acceptance of such hiatus.
Or: if you apply the words "theoretically" : WE (~universal machines) have -
theoretically- the capability of applying omniscience.

Excuse my asking into what you say you ARE still studying.


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

Reply via email to