Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site hwcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!ukc!cstvax!hwcs!greg
From: greg@hwcs.UUCP (Greg Michaelson)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.math
Subject: Re: Mind as Turing Machine
Message-ID: <677@hwcs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 08:26:12 EST
Article-I.D.: hwcs.677
Posted: Mon Nov  4 08:26:12 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 20:57:17 EST
References: <1996@umcp-cs.UUCP> <667@hwcs.UUCP> <2031@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Sci., Heriot-Watt U., Scotland
Lines: 59
Xref: linus net.philosophy:2789 net.math:2122

> In article <667@hwcs.UUCP> greg@hwcs.UUCP (Greg Michaelson) 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.
> 
> >We cannot now do X THEREFORE we cannot ever do X
> > where X = build a heavier than air flying machine
> >         = transmute one substance into another
> >         = model brain behaviour with a computer etc etc etc
> 
> Well, the correct analogy in the first case is
>   X = Build a Flying machine with flapping wings

Have you not seen the flying elastic powered plastic pigeons with flapping
wings?

> and in the second case
>   X = Transmute a substance using alchemy
> which fit well with the third
>   X = Model the brain with a VonNeuman machine

So VonNeuman technology = alchemy? Using current chemical/physical theory
it can be proved that alchemical techniques cannot transmute substances. Can you
provide an equivalent proof that VonN machines cannot be used to model
the (admittedly vast) finite state machine inside human skulls?

The form of argument is fallacious. I put in schematic form to try and this
apparent.

> 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. 

Why should 'natural technology' have any relevance for technology in general?

> 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 is actually religion which is affronted by the suggestion that humans are
no more than than protoplasmic automata. Just because people in AI make loony
claims does not mean that the computer simulation of human behaviour is
impossible.

> It's perfectly find to persue this hypothesis further.  But there's no
> reason for anyone to believe to be a truth.

How about some hypothesis to show that it can't be done?
Men on the moon? Nonsense! Travel underwater? Balderdash! Destroy a city at
the push of a button? Gad sir!