**From:** Mu In Taiwan (*mu.in.taiwan@gmail.com*)

**Date:** Wed Oct 14 2009 - 15:36:27 MDT

**Next message:**Johnicholas Hines: "[sl4] prediction markets"**Previous message:**Bradley Thomas: "RE: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound"**In reply to:**Bradley Thomas: "RE: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound"**Next in thread:**Pavitra: "Re: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound"**Reply:**Pavitra: "Re: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound"**Reply:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound"**Reply:**Stathis Papaioannou: "Re: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Wow... so many replies, yet so few attempts to check the axioms and

reasoning.

Starting from the beginning of JC's post:

JC wrote: "I confess to being a little shocked when somebody on this list

said that

all Turing did was prove the trivial fact that a program like the one

that produced the digits of Pi will never halt. I was shocked at this

misunderstanding because I think Turing's results are some of the most

important in all of science."

Well, those are claims about your own mental state and what you believe, no

problem there.

JC: "He proved that a computer, and by simple extension a mind, can't do

everything"

A computer? By simple extension a mind?

What utter tosh! And consequently the rest of your post, based as it is

around these claims, is of no value. If your axioms or reasoning are wrong,

your conclusions are wrong and should be discarded.

1 - Turing proved things about Turing Machines in 1936; not computers.

Turing Machines are not the same as physical computers; they are

mathematical abstractions that cannot and do not exist in the real world.

This is a fact of physics. There's just no room for the tape.

2 - If you would like to prove me wrong, simply show me a turing machine - a

photo would suffice - to demonstrate that it can exist in the real world. I

will be looking out for the infinite tape, in particular. Note that regular

computers are finite state machines, because, surprise surprise, they have a

finite set of states.

3 - "by simple extension a mind"? Humans have been disagreeing about what

constitutes brain and mind for over 2000 years, and you think you can

casually explain all future minds as being Turing machines with the two

words 'simple extension'? Such arrogance!

4 - You keep being asked to provide your evidence that 'all future minds

will be turing machines'. You keep failing to do so. Why are you failing to

do so?

5 - Considering that the only known examples of minds that we have (human

minds / human brains, depending on your point of view) are clearly not

Turing machines (they lack infinite state), this would seem to be the

strongest possible evidence that you do not know what you're talking about.

6 - I note from

http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-April/026391.html that

you believe yourself to be a computer program. This is a quite extraordinary

delusion, and is perhaps also the source of the cognitive dissonance that

you appear to be experiencing when people on this list present you with

inconvertible facts such as, 'there's not enough room on this planet for a

turing machine' and mathematical results such as 'e.g. the halting problem

only applies to theoretical turing machines'.

7 - You also claim not to possess a subjective experience in that post I

refer to above. In that case, 'you' ought not to be offended when I call

'you' an unhinged lunatic. Sure, we might see the body of John Clark react

in anger, but no harm has actually been done - nobody subjectively

experienced the feeling of being insulted, don't you agree?

8 - In an attempt to end your continual misrepresentation of Church and

Turing's work, I refer you to a peer-reviewed research paper that describes

your mistake in depth, and why it is a mistake.

Before you dismiss this paper without reading it - as I expect you will - I

want to note that the author is the Director of the Turing Archive for the

History of Computing, and a well-known author of numerous books about Alan

Turing and Artificial Intelligence. He is widely considered to be one of the

world's top authorities on what Alan Turing said and did.

http://www.phil.canterbury.ac.nz/people/copeland.shtml

"The Broad Conception of Computation" B. JACK COPELAND, 1997

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/40/6/690

"*A myth has arisen concerning Turing's article of 1936, namely that Turing

set forth a fundamental principle concerning the limits of what can be

computed by machine—a myth that has passed into cognitive science and the

philosophy of minds to wide and pernicious effect. This supposed principle,

sometimes incorrectly termed the* Church-Turing thesis, *is the claim that the

class of functions that can be computed by machines is identical to the

class of functions that can be computed by Turing machines. In point of

fact, Turing himself nowhere endorses or even states this claim (nor does

Church). The author describes a number of notional machines, both analog and

digital, that can compute more than a universal Turing machine. These

machines are exemplars of the class of nonclassical computing machines.

Nothing known at present rules out the possibility that machines in this

class will one day be built or that the brain itself is such a machine. These

theoretical considerations undercut a number of foundational arguments that

are commonly rehearsed in cognitive science and gesture toward a new class

of cognitive models*."

Now, STOP WRITING GARBAGE!

Mu

**Next message:**Johnicholas Hines: "[sl4] prediction markets"**Previous message:**Bradley Thomas: "RE: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound"**In reply to:**Bradley Thomas: "RE: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound"**Next in thread:**Pavitra: "Re: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound"**Reply:**Pavitra: "Re: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound"**Reply:**John K Clark: "Re: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound"**Reply:**Stathis Papaioannou: "Re: [sl4] Alan Turing's results are profound"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT
*