Re: OT Bull-fight avoidance

mAsterdam wrote:
> ...
>
> I'ld welcome those professionals - I would like to see
> some other perspectives. Anybody seriously considering
> to contribute from outside the RM will start reading
> some recent posts and suspect that they will not be
> treated politely, though. Not very attractive.
> ...

The thing is, saying "i've got this system that goes 'up' when i press this button and goes 'down' when i press that button" isn't nearly enough to qualify for discussion, no matter who the "professional" is.

   What was remarkable for me about the rm was that it found very precise parallels (maybe analogues is a better word, but metaphor is too sloppy a word) that allowed one to make a machine interpretation of an established mental system, both predictable as far as Turing, Godel et cetera allow. I think the people who propose alternatives need to establish the same connection before they start throwing new operators and metaphors around. There remain, IMO, basic issues to do with the rm that haven't been completely sorted out, for example the proper place for rva's (eg. implementation versus interface, predicates about sets versus predicates about single logical variables) but these don't change the value of the original insight.

m Received on Mon May 29 2006 - 01:54:13 CEST