[FRIAM] recap on Rosen

[glen e. p. ropella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Günther Greindl wrote:
>> How does the recursion theorem refute RR's claim?  Can you be a bit more
>> precise?
>
> (I looked 
> at Rosen's (M,R) Model of the cell and did not see any principal problem 
> in modelling this computationally -> that is where the 2nd rec. theorem 
> comes in; indeed, this is necessary and a quite deep insight, Descartes 
> could not solve this, but of course he did not have modern logic at his 
> disposal).
>
> I have not yet seen any substantial claim (except handwaving) coming 
> from RR's work which goes against traditional mechanist/computationalist 
> traditions.

[grin]  That's not an answer to my query.  You said that the recursion
theorem _refutes_ RR's claim.  You can't just say "I don't see how RR's
claim is justified."  That's not a refutation.  It's just a simple
statement that you don't know the justification.

How does the recursion theorem refute RR's claim?

After we see your refutation, then either: a) I'll be proven wrong,
regardless of how I may re-formulate RR's claim or b) the burden will be
on me to criticize your refutation.  But we have to see your refutation
first.

Note that I _agree_ with your main point, that life may be mathematical
or computable.  But I don't see how the recursion theorem refutes RR's
claim that "life is not mechanically emulable"?

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
http://meat.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFID3h0pVJZMHoGoM8RAv4jAJ0dT77EtsPdiRQ+6xRoAfPLfpHTWwCggLVK
IJECXwIi+Apd3QZJo2Hs+gg=
=EGCl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----