I don't disagree with you. But the question is less about whether any part of "an answer" is definable as computation and more about a value judgement on the results (or inputs) of any particular computation. If there is such a thing in the universe as a non-computational process (oracle) that sits inside the agent (or lurking out in the milieu), then when the computational cascade hits that non-computational process, that's when the binding/grounding/meaning obtains.
It's obvious that higher order processes (like quantification over quantifications) can be at least simulated in any modern computer programming language. (assuming the parallelism theorem) And languages like Coq can even help express intuitionistic logics. Whether such things are exactly equivalent to the higher order math we use in things like analysis is an open question, I think(!). I could easily be wrong, since I don't really grok things like HoTT. But even if unification were demonstrable everywhere, it's still a reasonable question for the lay person to wonder about. Where does vernacular "computation" stop and this high-falutin fancy-pants "computation" begin? The same sort of question occurs in questions about the neural correlates of consciousness. On 07/06/2016 04:00 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I don't see how this is unexpected or suggests anything that can't be computed. The agent takes a higher order function as an argument and then uses it. That is exactly like plugging in a constant. In fact, any decent compiler that inlines using interprocedural optimization will actually treat it that way. The generated object code will be the caller function with the argument incorporated into it, e.g. g(f,m,s) turns into just h(m,s). And users of languages like Haskell do this sort of partial application all the time [without particular concern for how it works]. If g is the anticipatory agent that is responding to other stimuli, s, then f may take on a different meaning than if it were incorporated into some other function like g'. Likewise if there are m and m' for different milieu environments different behaviors could occur for h(m,s) or h(m',s). That being realized, it doesn't mean that f has any magical meaning. It can still be understood completely without th at coupling.
-- glen ep ropella ⊥ 971-280-5699 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
