[From: Bruce Nevin (Fri 92045 10:53:30)]
(Gary Cziko 920605.0900) --
Looking over my question again, I am now amazed how I could have asked such
a question. I've seen and understood the equations. . . .
Yet in spite of all this and my desire to really understand PCT better, I
still ask this STUPID question.
This is really simple stuff compared to what the physicists do with quantum
mechanics and what the dynamical types do with chaos. And yet people like
me who really WANT to understand and aren't particularly dumb still have
problems with it.
At times like this I start to wonder if PCT will ever become widely
understood.
I believe the conceptual boggle of "thinking in circles" is analogous to
that experienced by people learning to program recursively. I suggest
leaning on this analogy when communicating with AI types (or anyone who
has learned LISP programming). _The Little LISPer_ illustrates I think
a good way to present the fact that there is a conceptual difficulty
here and how to get past it. I believe Winston's book on LISP also does.
The kind of technical treatment that you see in e.g. Abelson & Sussman's
_Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs_ is less apt because
it takes the computer's point of view.
Not to say or imply that I have the knack of thinking in circles yet!
But I would point out that this is what the Buddhists mean by mutual
causation.
Bruce
bn@bbn.com