On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, Joseph Knight <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring some > astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for Craig > to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make useful > progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?
What is it that you think I don't understand about COMP? The problem is that I know for a fact that you don't understand my view, and there is nothing anyone has said here which surprises me in any way about comp. It's all old hat to me, even if it seems exciting and fresh to you, I have been thinking about neurological simulations using computation for probably 35 years. I have drawings of multi-sensory Walkman designs from when I was 12. What is the big amazing thing about comp? Arithmetic truth? UDA? Substitution level? Self-reference and Turing Machines? I understand that you think it makes sense because computers can seem to simulate so many things, including computers, but that doesn't impress me because I understand that computers are only computers because users are using them that way. Otherwise they are just humming boxes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
