Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.math Subject: Re: Mind as Turing Machine Message-ID: <2137@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 23:33:35 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2137 Posted: Wed Nov 6 23:33:35 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 04:56:01 EST References: <2031@umcp-cs.UUCP> <677@hwcs.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 51 Xref: linus net.philosophy:2792 net.math:2124 In article <677@hwcs.UUCP> greg@hwcs.UUCP (Greg Michaelson) writes: >> 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? Certainly, and those existed back before the Wright Bros. did their thing. No sign of man-sized versions, though. Anyway... >> 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? My point here was not VonNeuman machines CAN'T do it-- it's that there's a strong possibility that the V.N. archetecture is simply the wrong mindset from which to approach the problem, much as flapping wings and alchemy were to their problems. Too often the voice I hear from the AI-ists is "V.N. (or Parallel, or whatever-your-favorite-variation) is the only way we know to attack the problem, so we will assume that it is the correct way." The notion that the mind is a great state machine is, I would contend, dangerously close to that sort of thinking. It's conveniently unfalsifiable, it's patently unmodelable as it stands (2**(10**10) states!?!), and thus allows you to work indefinitely on the problem without the inconvenience of being put to the test. What I don't hear these people saying, though, is "What are we going to do if it turns out NOT to be like a giant state machine?" One of my professors the other night made the claim that everyone should be a programmer, because that's the only way they are going to get what they want done on a computer. He persisted in an analogy between computer programming and writing. My personal opinion is that this is going to acheive the same results as we commonly see with programmers writing manuals; they supposedly know how to write, but they aren't really competent to write effectively on any large scale. But this is a side issue. My sociological comment on this is that it illustrates the sort of messianic light which one commonly sees in the eyes of computer scientists these days. Programming will change everyone's way of life. AI will give us new electronic brains. It's in some respects similar to the situation at the beginning of serious investigation into HTA manned flight; plenty of people thought it was possible, but almost without exception they were wrong about how it would be brought to pass. Charley Wingate