Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Sc--nce Attack (self-awareness)
Message-ID: <272@umich.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Oct-85 10:30:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.272
Posted: Mon Oct 14 10:30:55 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Oct-85 20:33:34 EDT
References: <45200016@hpfcms.UUCP> <1605@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 15
Keywords: Turing machines vs. the mind
Summary: There may be problems with functionalism, but this isn't one of them

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