Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: Re: Understanding you-folks

"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." I don't buy there is a meaningful distinction -- I mean one that should be preserved -- between those

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

http://www.edn.com/design/analog/4313284/MOSFET-based-analog-circuit-calculates-square-root From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Wall Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 6:12 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re:

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

Hi Robert Cordingley, I thought your follow-up question--about analog computing--to Nick's is an intriguing one, especially in the context of the definition for computing that Steven brought. Solving a set of differential equations certainly leads to an answer, though not necessarily to a

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: Re: Understanding you-folks

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)

[FRIAM] Fwd: Re: Understanding you-folks

Seems my other email address is jammed up ... made it to the archives, though. Forwarded Message Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:51:13 -0700 From: glen ☣ To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

In plain language discussions it is clear that "computation" is only one of many ways to arrive at an answer. I would suggest that anything that strays too far from that will become hopelessly confused. If my daughter has homework, and is supposed to compute the answer herself, then asking me

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

My question is then what do Analog Computers do and how do they fit into Nick's exploration? As I recall they have no procedures but do produce 'answers' without computation as we commonly know it these days. They probably have an 'accept state'

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

"Not to change the subject, but make an observation: It has always been my opinion that, had software development as a profession and practice been derived from the computational science of Ramon Lull and Leibniz instead of the computer science of Turing and Simon (Sciences of the Artificial)

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

Sorry. Let's try again. The link did not seem to come through for the cognitive science paper "Computation vs. information processing: why their difference matters to cognitive science

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

> > Many would argue (eg Seth Llloyd > http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020603/full/news020527-16.html) that > *any* process that involves changes of state is computation. Can you name a > "procedure for arriving at answers" that doesn't involve a series of > processes that change state? That

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

Marcus points out - "One way to divide things up is between computational science and computer science, where the computational scientists use computers as tools to integrate experiment & theory in the natural sciences. Computer science considers the mathematics of computation itself." Not to

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

``Whether something fits the intuitive concept of "computation" usually ends up being about binding (or grounding). If it's all merely syntactic manipulation of symbols, then it's computation. If it's something more, if it _means_ something, then it's no longer computation.'' One way to

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

On 07/06/2016 01:23 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: I'm not claiming nature _is_ computational in nature. But if it isn't we can't productively model nature at all. There is nothing to talk about if phenomenology has no predictable regularities. Pray to the Donald and hope for the best.

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

"your fishing expedition will likely be thwarted in waters that are exceeding turbulent from the interaction of prevailing trends: nothing exists except information, (re)configurations of that information yield transformations of the Universe from one state to another, and all

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

Well, that's kindasorta where I was going by complaining about definiteness. [sigh] If we allow that computations can arrive at indefinite answers (which I think is possible with Marcus' comment about symbolic "computation"), then it's hopeless. Computation covers everything. But if we

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

Nick, your fishing expedition will likely be thwarted in waters that are exceeding turbulent from the interaction of prevailing trends: nothing exists except information, (re)configurations of that information yield transformations of the Universe from one state to another, and all

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

Nick writes: > I guess what I was fishing for is some sort of exploration of the idea that not all procedures for arriving at answers are computations. Many would argue (eg Seth Llloyd http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020603/full/news020527-16.html) that *any* process that involves changes of

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

Nick writes.. "I guess what I was fishing for is some sort of exploration of the idea that not all procedures for arriving at answers are computations. " A program can guess randomly (or from probability distributions tabulated from past experiences) or simulate some physical process that

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

I didn't ask it because I wasn't smart enough to think of it. I guess what I was fishing for is some sort of exploration of the idea that not all procedures for arriving at answers are computations. Not so smart, after all, eh? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

I tend to use the word "algorithm" to mean processes that are guaranteed to stop. Anything that's not guaranteed to stop is simply a "process". The process below may or may not have a guaranteed stop, depending on how it's implemented[*]. If you had not said "ask dad" and "dad says", then

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

"Ask" could be a higher order function that takes as an argument a "says" function. Provided those are made precise enough to be operational, then you would have a "consult the Oracle" program/algorithm. Details such as "how to acquire the Dad" (and what to do in his absence) would need to be

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

Thanks, Glen, I assume that the following is NOT a program in your sense. ;;Compute the sum of 2 and 2;;. Begin Ask Dad, "Dad, what is the sum of 2 and 2? Dad says, "Four" Four End. It is, however, an algorithm, right? Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Re: [FRIAM] Understanding you-folks

Nick, It's fantastic how you punch right through the rhetoric to the deeper philosophical points. Thanks. It all depends on how you define "compute". I think the best definition offered here (by Lee) is Soare's: "A computation is a process whereby we proceed from initially given objects,