Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!news.isi.edu!gremlin!charming!mcohen
From: mcohen@charming.nrtc.northrop.com (Martin Cohen)
Subject: Re: Cognitive Function, Reduction, and Quantum Mechanics
Message-ID: <D6ots0.29M@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com>
Sender: news@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com (Usenet News Manager)
Organization: Northrop Grumman Automation Sciences Laboratory, Pico Rivera, CA
References: <3la5qr$86@oahu.cs.ucla.edu> <enea-2903951033470001@enea.vip.best.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 23:11:57 GMT
Lines: 20
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:3002 comp.ai.philosophy:26684

In article <enea-2903951033470001@enea.vip.best.com> enea@best.com (Horace Enea) writes:

>I find reductionist arguments about information processing
>systems amusing. They would analyze a C program to determine
>it's function by grinding up the listing and placing it in
>a mass spectrometer. 

This is, of course, flame-bait.

A more accurate application of reductionist arguments to
a C program (IMHO) would be applying the semantics of the 
C language to each statement and combining these
in higher and higher level groups to determine
the meaning of the program at the higher levels.


-- 
Marty Cohen (mcohen@nrtc.northrop.com) - Not the guy in Philly
  This is my opinion and is probably not Northrop Grumman's!
          Use this material of your own free will
