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.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucbernie!tedrick
From: tedrick@ucbernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.math
Subject: Re: Sc--nce Attack (self-awareness)
Message-ID: <10671@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 19:39:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10671
Posted: Tue Oct 15 19:39:52 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 00:56:13 EDT
References: <45200016@hpfcms.UUCP> <1605@pyuxd.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.ARPA
Reply-To: tedrick@ucbernie.UUCP (Tom Tedrick)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 31
Keywords: Turing machines vs. the mind
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2862 net.math:2377

In article <272@umich.UUCP> torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) writes:
>In article <10642@ucbvax.ARPA> tedrick@ucbernie.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>>...for any particular Turing machine there are certain
>>statements that the human mind can recognize as true (again with
>>the consistency assumption), that the machine cannot recognize
>>as true.
>>
>>Does anyone dispute this?
>
>Yes.  If the human brain is essentially a Turing machine, then for any
>particular human (or group of them) there is at least one statement that
>he (they) cannot recognize as true.  Not very earthshattering, given that
>there are probably lots of complex mathematical theorems which are true
>but which no human will ever recognize as true.
>
>--Paul V Torek						torek@umich

I don't understand your argument. I claim that the human mind
cannot be essentially a turing machine. If we assume that a
partcular mind is equivalant to a particular turing machine,
then we immediately get a contradiction, namely there exists
a statement recognizable as true by that human mind which is
not recognizable as true by that turing machine.

Can anyone explain to me what if anything is wrong with my
reasoning?

Thanks very much,

     -Tom
      tedrick@ucbernie.ARPA