🚀 go-pugleaf

I clearly must be missing something very important to all of these
discussions.  Therefore, before I spew out my version of the world, I
have three questions:

1) Could someone name one process which cannot be broken down into an
algorithm?  That is, many people have said the mind may not be simulated
through an algorith, but personally, no other examples of
non-alogorithmical processes occur to me.  Please, someone, tell me what
obvious example I'm missing.

2) Others have named that current computers are not Turing machines--is
this not false?  Aren't all digital computer simulatable on a Turing
machine?  Or again, am I missing something obvious?  What's the simplest
problem a digital computer can solve that a Turing machine cannot?

3)  What is the definition of semantics?  Before even attempting to
argue that syntax can give rise to semantics, I'd like to here some
definitions of what all of you think semantics mean.  To me, semantics
is just a fancy term (aren't we all fond of using fancy terms) for
having a defined meaning--for example, that any time anyone in the
universe sees the word "telephone" they would think of a telephone, just
like any of us would :-).  It seems that nothing in life, through this
loose, derived, definition, could ever have any semantics, so please,
someone define it for me before I post something I'll regret.

As this post may indicate, I have something to say on each of these
topics, but wish to avoid the serious Net-gaffe and post something ill-
informed.  I feel, however, that others may need the same clarification
as I, so I am posting this note first.  Feel free to either post your
responses or send E-Mail, as I will summarize any replies I get.

			Kent Dickey
kadickey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU