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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.math Subject: Re: Mind as Turing Machine Message-ID: <2031@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 23:11:03 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2031 Posted: Wed Oct 30 23:11:03 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 05:30:59 EST References: <1996@umcp-cs.UUCP> <667@hwcs.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 42 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2989 net.math:2458 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 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 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. Charley Wingate