Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation

From: Eray Ozkural exa (examachine_at_gmail.com)
Date: 11/22/04 

Date: 22 Nov 2004 03:05:57 -0800

JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message news:<i342q0tsrbv079f5qqntii9bjfb02fpj1m@4ax.com>...
> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine/
> >A Turing machine is a kind of state machine.
> >Turing machines are not physical objects but mathematical ones.
>
> Fascinating, a non-physical state machine.
>
> I'm a big fan of SEP, but I believe the idealist interpretation they
> give Turing machines in several articles is inconsistent with what
> Turing wrote, and inconsistent with what he wrote about.

Agreed. Turing seems to be a concrete physicalist.

This talk of non-physical machines is an open invitation to substance
dualism, which we should not favor on comp.ai.philosophy. And neither
on comp.theory. I guess sci.math readers want to have the privilege to
talk about counter-factuals, and I'll happily grant that, but they
must know what it means.

> >These two assumptions are intended to ensure that the definition of
> >computation that results is not too narrow.
>
> OK, and let us also worry that it not be too broad.

I know you worry about this, but I am not too concerned.

Regards, 

--
Eray Ozkural
Loading