**From:** Christian Szegedy (*szegedy@t-online.de*)

**Date:** Fri Oct 08 2004 - 17:42:35 MDT

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**Previous message:**Bill Hibbard: "Re: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**Next in thread:**Bill Hibbard: "Re: Was Penrose hoplessly confused?"**Reply:**Bill Hibbard: "Re: Was Penrose hoplessly confused?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi Bill,

You wrote:

* > You are right that I do not demonstrate a mathematical
*

* > error in Penrose. Rather, his overall argument is wrong,
*

* > based on an unrealistic model of human brains.
*

I restate it the last time: if you write that the human mind can

be computationally modelled by a finite state machine, then

you implicitely agree with him that it can be modelled by

a Turing machine.

Your refutation attempt is analogous to:

"Penrose assumes that the humans are mammals, but of course,

this is absurd, since they are clearly apes. So his argument that

we can do something that mammals can't do is flawed, since

we are not mammals, but apes."

I think that your argumentation is wrong, since it does not matter

whether we can be modelled by FSMs or TMs. (whether we are

apes or mammals) but whether we can do something what a TM

(mammal) can not. This is the really weak point in his

argumentation. And this would remain a weak point even if the

human brain could perform arbitrarily long computations.

So I think that your refutation is flawed since it attacks at the

wrong point. You do not exhibit the real weakness in his

consideration. The real weakness has nothing to do with

finiteness, it is a much more basic matter.

Let me illuminate the error in his arguments on another analogue.

(Now, I will play the his role and try to convince you that you are

not a computer.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Computers cannot factor numbers with large prime factors

efficiently, can they?

Let us take a the smallest prime number with 100 digits

and multiply it with the smallest prime number with 200

digits. If you were a computer it would be a hard job for

you to factorize their product.

Hah...! But is not it quite clear to you what the factors of

the product are?

Since you can factor so efficiently, it is highly improbable

that you are a computer. Perhaps, you are quantum-coputer,

since they can factorize efficiently too!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The flaw in the above arguments has nothing to do with

finiteness, or whether I have enough time or

brain-capacity to work with 300 digit numbers. It is simple

a question of input-formats. If the factors are apriori

told, than it is not a big deal to factorize their product.

In fact, you did not have to factorize at all. This is the same

in his original argument.

**Next message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**Previous message:**Bill Hibbard: "Re: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**Next in thread:**Bill Hibbard: "Re: Was Penrose hoplessly confused?"**Reply:**Bill Hibbard: "Re: Was Penrose hoplessly confused?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT
*