> The difference is in the
> paper and should be non-existent of COMP is true.

Now I see your point. Thanks, I have missed it.

On 14.06.2011 01:41 Colin Hales said the following:
Hi Evgenii,

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

cheers colin

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. 1-35.


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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to