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 (really on minds and computers)
Message-ID: <10702@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 06:47:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10702
Posted: Fri Oct 18 06:47:09 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Oct-85 04:42:03 EDT
References: <299@umich.UUCP> <10699@ucbvax.ARPA> <10700@ucbvax.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.ARPA
Reply-To: tedrick@ucbernie.UUCP (Tom Tedrick)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 60
Keywords: Turing machines vs. the mind
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2885 net.math:2387

>>I claim there is a distinction between the human mind and any
>>Turing machine.

>Your points seem to be:

>(1) Humans can recognize consistency of certain formal systems, and
>    machines lack this ability .
>(2) There is something mysterious about this ability, and nondeterminism
>    has something to do with it; therefore

[I didn't say anything about nondeterminism, just that the 
turing machines I am talking about are deterministic.]

>(3) no Turing machine can be equivalent to a human mind.

>You are confusing two issues: reasoning *within* a formal system, and
>reasoning *about* a formal system.

[I don't think that is what I am confused about.]

>What is so mysterious about the
>latter kind of reasoning? All one needs to do is define a more powerful
>system, and then by reasoning within the new system you can show the
>incompleteness/inconsistency/whatever of the weaker system.
>Of course, the formal system for any given Turing machine is fixed, and
>that machine will be unable to 'jump out of the system' to reason
>about its own properties.  But we can always design a more powerful 
>machine which *will* be able to reason about the weaker one.

[Yes, this is exactly the point. Exhibit the turing machine that
is claimed to be equivalent to the human mind, and the human mind
can reason about the system in ways impossible within the system.
Thus we contradict the assumption that the machine was equivalent
to the mind.]

>Your mention of determinism is irrelevant; humans are just as deterministic
>as machines. Unpredictable, perhaps...since we are orders of magnitude more
>complex than any machines we know how to build....but subject to the same
>laws of physics.

OK, we at least have a clear point of disagreement. I don't believe
human beings are deterministic. I also don't accept the laws of
physics as absolute. I accept them as an absolutely brilliant
model but not as complete truth. I don't accept the notion that
the human being is just a very complex machine. 

I originally asked whether anyone disputed my claim that the human
mind is not equivalent to a turing machine. After all the negative
response, I would like to change my question to:

*IS THERE ANYONE THAT AGREES WITH ME THAT THE HUMAN MIND IS PROVABLY
 NOT EQUIVALENT TO A TURING MACHINE?*

"Help, I'm trapped in a machine  :-)"

    -Beleaguered and beseiged on all fronts by the upholders of
     the dignity of turing machines, I remain

     -Tom the Human
      tedrick@ucbernie.ARPA