Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!jwl From: jwl@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.math Subject: Re: Sc--nce Attack (really on minds and computers) Message-ID: <10810@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Sat, 26-Oct-85 17:20:45 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10810 Posted: Sat Oct 26 17:20:45 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 28-Oct-85 03:16:36 EST References: <299@umich.UUCP> <10699@ucbvax.ARPA> <10700@ucbvax.ARPA> <10702@ucbvax.ARPA> <1006@oddjob.UUCP> <859@whuxlm.UUCP> Reply-To: jwl@ucbvax.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) Distribution: net Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 35 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2938 net.math:2432 In article <859@whuxlm.UUCP> dim@whuxlm.UUCP (McCooey David I) writes: >> 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. Not at all! I see two problems with your line of reasoning. First, your assertion that a finite number of neurons --> a finite state machine. This assumes that neurons have discrete states; however when you consider the continuous, analog nature of activation thresholds, this argument breaks down. A second, *major* flaw is the notion that humans must rely on their brains alone for 'storage'. Ever since the invention of writing, this hasn't been true; literature can be viewed as a Turing machine tape for humans! I stand by my claim that minds and Turing machines are equivalent. -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley ...!ucbvax!jwl jwl@ucbernie.BERKELEY.EDU