🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep14.220139.4525@galois.mit.edu> tycchow@riesz.mit.edu  
(Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
> In article <1992Sep14.144957.28355@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil  
Rickert) writes:
> >No.  The main problem lies in the impossibility of constructing a table
> >sufficiently comprehensive.
> [various practical difficulties deleted]

I don't quibble over practicalities or implementation in my argument, you'll
 note. I quible over the difference between something that exists and something  
that is constructible via an algorithm.

Something that exists mathematically but is not constructible is a pretty  
complicated thing, I'd say. I wouldn't want to wield such a thing in a way
that implied my intuition about it was solid.

After all: consciousness and intelligence exist as _empirical phenomena_
that we can't figure out how to construct---and these are the things
we are talking about. How an even more ambiguos entity clarifies things
is not clear.

The lookup table is easily comprehended only if you don't think
about it too much...

 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)