I expect you are not alone in struggling with the Natural Computation
(NC) vs Artificial Computation (AC) idea. The difference is in the
paper and should be non-existent of COMP is true. The paper then shows a
place where it can't be true hence AC and NC are different .ie. the
natural world is not computation of the Turing-machine kind( at least to
the extent needed to construct a scientist, which includes the need to
create a liar).
It's all quite convoluted, but nevertheless sufficient to help an
engineer like me make a design choice... which I have done.
I hope over time these ideas will not grate on the mind quite so much.
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Thanks for the paper. I have just browsed it. Two small notes.
I like [Turing et al., 2008]. It seems that he has passed his test
I find term Natural Computation (NC) a bit confusing. I guess that I
understand what you means but the term Computation sounds ambiguously,
because then it is completely unclear what it means in such a context.
On 07.06.2011 09:42 Colin Hales said the following:
Hales, C. G. 'On the Status of Computationalism as a Law of Nature',
International Journal of Machine Consciousness vol. 3, no. 1, 2011.
The paper has finally been published. Phew what an epic!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at