From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Thu Jan  9 10:33:55 EST 1992
Article 2537 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Edelman's non-computability non-argument
Message-ID: <356@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 92 19:01:44 GMT
References: <2215@ucl-cs.uucp>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 25

In article <2215@ucl-cs.uucp> G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) writes:
|
|>> From: chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (The Technicolour Throw-up)
|>> > From article <61325@netnews.upenn.edu>, by weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener):
|>> > I haven't the foggiest clue as to how to truly model the outside world.
| ...
|Yup. You missed the point, and the hook, line and sinker. The keyword
|is "truly model". How does a "true model" differ from a "model"? All
|model are approximations to reality.

Well, in that case the question 'how does one truly model the outside world'
becomes totally uninteresting, since there is no such thing as a "true model".

Certainly even, or especially, humans make do with incomplete and aproximate
models.  So why is 'true modelling' relevant to the subject at hand?


Of course, it is possible that the original intent of the question was
something different.  Some more subtle distinction was intended by the
'truly' qualifier.  If so, could that meaning be clarified so we could
talk the same language?
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)



