Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxlm.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!dim From: dim@whuxlm.UUCP (McCooey David I) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.math Subject: Re: Sc--nce Attack (really on minds and computers) Message-ID: <859@whuxlm.UUCP> Date: Fri, 25-Oct-85 11:46:21 EDT Article-I.D.: whuxlm.859 Posted: Fri Oct 25 11:46:21 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 04:40:55 EDT References: <299@umich.UUCP> <10699@ucbvax.ARPA> <10700@ucbvax.ARPA> <10702@ucbvax.ARPA> <1006@oddjob.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany Lines: 22 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2927 net.math:2427 > In article <10702@ucbvax.ARPA> tedrick@ucbernie.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: > > > >*IS THERE ANYONE THAT AGREES WITH ME THAT THE HUMAN MIND IS PROVABLY > > NOT EQUIVALENT TO A TURING MACHINE?* > > Sure, I agree with you. A Turing machine has unlimited memory. > _____________________________________________________ > Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa > Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt Matt's reply goes along with my line of thought. Consider the situation realistically: The human mind has a finite number of neurons and therefore a finite number of states. So I propose that the human mind is equivalent to a finite state machine, not a Turing machine. (I agree with Tom, but for the opposite reasons). Note that my comparison does not belittle the human mind at all. Finite can still mean very, very large. The operation of a finite state machine with a very large number of states is, for humans, indistinguishable from that of a Turing machine. Dave McCooey AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ ihnp4!whuxlm!dim or ...!whlmos!dim