On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: "My point is that a Turing machine is not even truly universal" >
Anything you can do a Turing Machine can do better, or at least as well. > "let alone infinite." > Your mind is not infinite either. > "It's an object oriented syntax that is limited to particular kinds of > functions, none of which include biological awareness" You seem to be in the habit of writing declarative sentences that not only you are unable to prove but you can't even find a single scrap of evidence that would lead someone to think it might be true. " which might make sense since biology is almost entirely fluid-solution > based." > Fluids! You think that makes sense? You think the key to consciousness is our precious bodily fluids? Here is a short scene from the movie Dr. Strangelove that has a character who thinks along somewhat similar lines. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY > " my view is that gravity is evidence that all physical objects perceive > each other." I don't see what this has to do with consciousness as both computers and the grey goo in your head are physical objects, but gravity does not "perceive" where other objects are only where they were because gravitational effects only move at the speed of light, if the sun suddenly disappeared it would be 8 minutes before the Earth noticed and changed its orbit. "Machines have no feeling." > You seem to be in the habit of writing declarative sentences that not only you are unable to prove but you can't even find a single scrap of evidence that would lead someone to think it might be true. > "Caring cannot be programmed." You seem to be in the habit of writing declarative sentences that not only you are unable to prove but you can't even find a single scrap of evidence that would lead someone to think it might be true. > "Artist and Musician: Computer generated music has been around since at >> least the 60s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Neivqp2K4"; >> > > "Yep, 47 years since then and still no improvement whatsoever." Oh I'd say there was improvement, the following has 2 tracks of much more modern computer composed music, I particularly liked track 2, I'd certainly be proud if I had written it: http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/ > "Does anyone use ELIZA for psychology?" Why does anyone even talk about ELIZA anymore when there are programs like Watson and Sir around? " No. It's utterly useless" So you admit that even a very old program like ELIZA does a excellent job emulating psychologists. " a Turing machine should be executable as a truck load of live hamsters or > a dense layer of fog." >From an engineering perspective those are probably not ideal materials to make a computer out of, but then neither is a long paper tape with marks on it as described in Turing's original 1936 article. What made the article so important is that Turing proved that if they are organized in the right way there is no theoretical reason why you could not build a computer out of ANYTHING. > "A Turing machine can't experience anything by itself" You seem to be in the habit of writing declarative sentences that not only you are unable to prove but you can't even find a single scrap of evidence that would lead someone to think it might be true. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
