Yes! This is exactly my sentiment in objecting to the (torturously defined) concept of definite. There are a number of us here on the list who seem dyed-in-the-wool predicativists and impredicativity will be rejected at every turn, often imperiously and pretentiously. I'm not *committed* to the idea that loopiness is a primary constituent of living systems. But so few can construct a good argument *against* it that I've remained in this state for decades, now.
On 7/28/20 9:57 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > Perhaps a properly broadly conceived General Artificial Intelligence would > ultimately include all of this as well, and as deep learning evolves, it > seems that there is no reason that a GI couldn't simulate the physiological > feedback loops that drive and regulate some aspects of humore? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
