-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'm going to violate the bottom-post rule because all 3 of the following excerpts focus on the point I made (in response to Günther) that there's a difference between "computation" as the software that runs on a machine and the machine, itself. When we talk about "computation", are we talking about a concrete _thing_ that exists out there in the world? Or are we talking about an abstract machine that exists only in our minds (or software as the case may be)? Marcus' comments show that he's talking about the former... computers are real machines that can avail themselves of the full machinery of reality. Hence, that type of "computation" isn't limited in the way RR suggests because that's not what "computability" refers to. A robot that can change itself based on sensory-motor interactions with the real world is not a computer in the same sense as a universal turing machine. This distinction provides plenty of fodder for long arguments and confusion between Rosenites. Some even say that an extant, concrete machine in the real world actually is complex_rr in the same sense that a rock or a mountain is (but not a tree or a cat). Others vehemently deny that. The former seem to submit to degrees of complexity_rr whereas the others seem to think it's bivalent. So, I already asked this; but, the conversation really needs a clear understanding of what we mean by "computation". Perhaps we could split it into two categories: computation_c would indicate the activities of a concrete machine and computation_a would indicate the (supposed) activities of a universal turing machine. Joost Rekveld on 01/08/2008 02:13 PM: > isomorphism could be possible), but from what I understand from > Rosen, Pattee, Pask and Cariani is that novelty in a real, non- > platonic (let's say Aristotelic ?) world has to do with the > appearance of new primitives: new symbols with new meanings in a new > syntax. The construction of symbols in the real world is an open- > ended process, which is why no isomorphism with a closed, formal > system is possible. Marcus G. Daniels on 01/08/2008 02:52 PM: > I don't see why this must be so. One could imagine that a robot had > a field programmable gate array that could, in effect, burn an all > new processor and bring it online. But, usually when new computer > architectures are being developed, the developers just write a > software simulator for it in initial stages (that mimics the intended > physics of the hardware design). Even the adiabatic quantum computer > people at DWave are using existing silicon process technologies to > design circuits.. Joost Rekveld on 01/08/2008 03:24 PM: > I guess the crucial difference is that such a self-constructing robot > would be grounded in the real world and not in a prespecified > computed universe. It would be able to evolve its own computed > universe. I'm not sure what to think of all this, but I like > Cariani's ideas a lot and so far I haven't found any basic flaw in > them. But, as said, being non-schooled in these matters that doesn't > necessarily mean very much. - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com Government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. -- Henry David Thoreau -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHhB7PZeB+vOTnLkoRAkxPAJkBFRfqeFx/UOEwqm05yJOZ8WHO9gCfTefY HYWqQsjEqLVI5D13iIW0zoc= =WGg8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
