Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!cca!ISM780!marv
From: marv@ISM780.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: Re: Sc--nce Attack (really on minds
Message-ID: <30200002@ISM780.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 18:46:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ISM780.30200002
Posted: Mon Oct 28 18:46:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Nov-85 21:09:18 EST
References: <10810@ucbvax.UUCP>
Lines: 34
Nf-ID: #R:ucbvax:-1081000:ISM780:30200002:000:1650
Nf-From: ISM780!marv    Oct 28 18:46:00 1985


>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

I claim that a finite sized human (not all information processing is done in
the brain) *does* imply a finite state machine machine.  I think that human
information processing  involves chemical reactions (a finite number atoms)
and energy tranformations (a finite number of photons) and therfore only a
finite (albeit very large) number of states.

And surely you don't mean to imply that the amount of information stored in
a finite sized set of librarys is infinite.

I conclude that the human processing is *not* equivalent to a Turning machine.
Humans are clearly physically realizable.  Turning machines being infinite
are not physically realizable.  Therefore, I think a more reasonable question
to ask is: can a physically realizable machine be built that can mimic human
information processing?  I am not aware of any laws of physics that disallows
the construction of such a machine. It seams to me this is an open question
to be answered (hopfully) in the future.

	  Marv Rubinstein -- Interactive Systems.