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,net.math
Subject: Re: Sc--nce Attack (really on minds and computers)
Message-ID: <299@umich.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 19:34:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.299
Posted: Wed Oct 16 19:34:47 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Oct-85 00:54:52 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 19
Keywords: Turing machines vs. the mind
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2867 net.math:2382

In article <10671@ucbvax.ARPA> tedrick (Tom Tedrick) writes:

>>there are probably lots of complex mathematical theorems which are true
>>but which no human will ever recognize as true.
>
>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.

Which one?  The statement that is not recognizable by the Turing
machine may be *extremely* complex -- what makes you so damn sure
you could recognize it as true?  Tell me, Tom, is it true that every
even number greater than two is the sum of two primes?  What, you don't
know?  Then you get the point -- I hope.

--Paul V Torek, making flames the old-fashioned way -- earning them.