1Z wrote:
>
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>>I think we need to say what it means for a computation to be self-interpreting.
>
>
> Only if we have reaoxn to think all computations need inteprretation.
I don't understand that remark. I would say a computation being "self-interpreting"
is the same as saying it doesn not need interpretation. I'm just suggesting that we
need to identify whatever it is about those programs that makes them different from
programs that do need interpreting.
> However, if interpretation can be reduced to computation
> (rather than vice-versa) that is not a problem.
That interpretation can be reduced to computation is implicit in computationalism.
The question is what, if anything, is unique about those computations that execute
interpretation.
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Sep 09 2006 - 19:07:08 PDT