Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: The Solipsistic Computer
Message-ID: <jqbD6BBE3.J68@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3l32pg$aqp@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3l9bdq$5kc@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 16:06:03 GMT
Lines: 30
Sender: jqb@netcom12.netcom.com

In article <3l9bdq$5kc@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, JRStern <jrstern@aol.com> wrote:
>In  <3l32pg$aqp@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>> You have spent a long article
>> misconstruing what I am saying ...
>
>I too have tried, Neil.  One of us is misconstruing what you are saying,
>and I
>do not think it is me.
>
>> ... ignoring what I am writing and
>> criticizing me for a position I have not taken.
>
>You say interaction is outside the issue of computability. I say I can see
>no 
>reasons for believing this.  The theory of the UTM tells us that two
>computers
>are not more theoretically powerful than one, because one can simulate
>two.  I 
>see this as completely answering your repeated axiomatic assertion that
>the
>interaction of two entities is beyond the TM paradigm.

And TM'S can be explained in terms of the Peano Axioms, so let's just stick
with those.

This is a fine example of crackpot reductionism.

-- 
<J Q B>

