Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucdavis.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucdavis!cccjohn From: cccjohn@ucdavis.UUCP (John Carlson) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.math Subject: Re: Mind as Turing Machine Message-ID: <212@ucdavis.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 00:27:12 EST Article-I.D.: ucdavis.212 Posted: Fri Nov 1 00:27:12 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 07:20:30 EST References: <1996@umcp-cs.UUCP> <667@hwcs.UUCP> <2031@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: University of California, Davis Lines: 58 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2980 net.math:2455 *** LINES FOR SALE: 50 CENTS WORTH FEEDS FAMILY OF FOUR *** In article <1996@umcp-cs.UUCP> Charley Wingate writes: > Lastly, it's certainly clear that we cannot now model even moderately small > portions of the mind through computers. I think it is reasonable to ask > those who wish to assert the turing machine-ness of the mind need to show > some method by which the mind can be translated into an equivalent turing > machine, even if this translation is computationally infeasible (which is > indeed likely). Without such an algorithm, I think there is reasonable > cause not to accept the hypothesis. Later, in article <2031@umcp-cs.UUCP> he adds: > > I'm not arguing that we can't model the brain with a computer. I'm just > saying that the efforts of AI researchers tend to indicate that such > computers aren't likely to be like today's machines. In principle, for > instance, we could build something which had lots of little chips, one for > each neuron. It's also important to note that this is not merely a > technological question: it is also a statement about the nature of existing > natural technology. One ordinarily expects such hypotheses to make > experimental predictions which are then put to the test. Instead, it is > believed in with a kind of religious fervor. > > It's perfectly find to persue this hypothesis further. But there's no > reason for anyone to believe to be a truth. 1) Assume you could design a Turing-like machine equivalent yourself. 2) Then you could comprehend all of this machine's actions, because you would know all of it's inputs and outputs. 3) Then you could comprehend all of your actions. 4) Knowing all of the machine's inputs and outputs is equivalent knowing the universe. 5) Then you could comprehend the whole universe. 6) I conclude that it would be easiest to model a human being with an analog machine. 7) Try replacing "you" with "we", "yourself" with "to a human", and "your" with "a human's". Here's some questions: 1) Are all inputs and outputs equivalent to the universe? 2) Can we make something we will never comprehend, that is, a higher intelligence? John Carlson