> If this physical interpretation of the Church-Turing thesis
> is accepted then it follows that if the physical brain and its
> operation is a "well defined process" then it must be possible
> to implement the process that the brain carries out on a Turing
> machine. This is the claim of "Stron
Eliezer wrote:
> The C-T Thesis is an argument for Strong AI because it requires that any
> opponent of Strong AI posit a nonstandard model of physics to allow for
> noncomputable processes which, through a nonstandard neurological
> mechanism, have a noticeable macroscopic effect on brain process
Thanks, Ben, that answer will be useful for different things.
http://sl4.org/bin/wiki.pl?SingularityQuestions (edited answer below
question 5)
Best,
Anand
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> The CT thesis would seem to imply the possibility of strong AI.
>
> That is, it implies that: On any general-purpose
Of Anand AI
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 2:29 PM
> To: AGI List
> Subject: [agi] C-T Thesis (or a version thereof) - Is it useable as an
> in-principle argument for strong AI?
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> After having read quite a bit about the the C-T Thesis, and its differ
Hi everyone,
After having read quite a bit about the the C-T Thesis, and its different
versions, I'm still somewhat confused on whether it's useable as an
in-principle argument for strong AI. Why or why isn't it useable? Since I
suspect this is a common question, any good references that you hav
