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