From: Matt Gingell (mjg223@is7.nyu.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 26 1999 - 15:49:03 MDT
"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <extropians@extropy.com>
>> On what basis do you define qualia as non-Turing-computable?
>
> Well, they aren't, so why should I define them as Turing-computable?
The assertion that qualia are not computable is totally meaningless.
Compare against the assertion that baseballs are non-computable or
that qualia are NP-complete. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
> (Proof by blatant assertion.)
Uh huh...
> I ain't goin' over this again; search the archives.
If you don't want to go into it then provide a direct reference. The
above is just juvenile.
-matt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:38 MST