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