From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!noao!arizona!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!NSMA.AriZonA.EdU!bill Thu Apr 16 11:34:01 EDT 1992
Article 5044 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!noao!arizona!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!NSMA.AriZonA.EdU!bill
>From: bill@NSMA.AriZonA.EdU (Bill Skaggs)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Robert Rosen & Physical form of Church's Thesis
Message-ID: <1992Apr10.165224.11963@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:52:24 GMT
References: <TogZiB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
Sender: news@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu
Reply-To: bill@NSMA.AriZonA.EdU (Bill Skaggs)
Organization: Center for Neural Systems, Memory, and Aging
Lines: 20

In article <TogZiB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> 
tomh.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
>Robert Rosen has a new book out, called "Life Itself" which
>addresses many of the issues that have been discussed here.

>Rosen claims that the physical form of Church's Thesis is false.
 
>Issues this raises are:

>2) Is a turbulent flow an effective form of computation?  That is,
>   does a turbulent flow comprise an algorithm for computing something?

  The important question is, does a turbulent flow comprise an
algorithm for computing something *useful*?  If it can be
shown that any system gains any advantage, or accomplishes
a goal, by using a turbulent flow in a way that cannot be
reproduced by a Turing machine, then this would show that
Church's Thesis is false.  Otherwise not.

	-- Bill


