Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 03/03/05 

Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:44:50 -0500

robert j. kolker said:
>
>
> Albert Wagner wrote:
> >>
> >> That is far from clear. Any manipulation of data is a form of
> >> computation. While the brain's implementation is hardly binary and
> >> synchronous like a conventional computer, there is no reason to
> >> believe that its data processing capabilities can't be theoretically
> >> implemented in a Turing machine.
>
> On the other hand there is no reason to belive that id can be so
> implemented either. The only way to settle the question is to perfectly
> simulate a human intellect with a computer having two-state compoenents.
>
> Yoda says: Do not your breath hold, Young Albert until simulates a brain
> does a Turning machine. Else puprple turn you will.
>
> Or as ObiWan says: Luke! *** the Computer. Use the Force!
>
> Bob Kolker
>
>
Um, that was my statement quoted above, not Albert's. The other way to
settle it is demonstrate a function of the brain which cannot be
translated into a Turing machine, as I said. Until you do that, or I
make the PC think and feel, the question goes unanswered, and whatever
we say amounts to opinion. Someting tells me though, even when you see
it in front of you, you'll say it's a trick and dismiss it until it
curses you out and puts you in the kill file. 

-- 
Smiles,
Tony
Quantcast