bridge,
1993.
Best,
Bruno
PS That is my second message. Possible comment next week.
>
>
>
>
>> -- Messaggio originale --
>> Da: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>> A: FIS Webinar <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>> Data: 14 mag
Dear Arturo, Dear Colleagues,
> On 11 May 2018, at 18:36, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:
>
> Dear Bruno,
> I'm sorry, but I cannot agree.
>
>
I take a disagreement as a courtesy to pursue a conversation, which would be
boring without them.
But, what I say has been proved, peer reviewed by
Dear Arturo,
> On 10 May 2018, at 15:23, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:
>
> Dear Bruno,
> You state:
> "IF indexical digital mechanism is correct in the cognitive science,
> THEN “physical” has to be defined entirely in arithmetical term, i.e.
> “physical” becomes a mathematical notion.
>
Dear Arturo,
There were some reports in clinical psychology, about 30 years ago, that
relate to the question whether a machine can pretend to be a therapist.
That was the time as computers could newly be used in an interactive
fashion, and the Rogers techniques were a current discovery.
(Rogers
Dear Bruno,
You state:
"IF indexical digital mechanism is correct in the cognitive science,
THEN “physical” has to be defined entirely in arithmetical term, i.e.
“physical” becomes a mathematical notion.
...Indexical digital mechanism is the hypothesis that there is a level of
description of
(This mail has been sent previously , but without success. I resend it, with
minor changes). Problems due to different accounts. It was my first comment to
Mark Burgin new thread “Is information physical?”.
Dear Mark, Dear Colleagues,
Apology for not answering the mails in the chronological
