X-Message-Number: 14963 From: "Pat Clancy" <> Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:35:42 -0800 Subject: Re: more on machines and brains Thomas Donaldson wrote: > The simple fact that brains are also real-time > machines also must be dealt with: at some point a large enough number > of neurons will create an object which cannot be imitated by any > single processor IN PRINCIPLE, for the simple reason that no single > processor could do the required work fast enough. The fact that we're > processing our sensory input makes a difference here. I think you bring up a key point. But I think that the "speed" of external events does not matter at all; there is no reason why a "mind" algorithm should depend on higher speeds, or more processors, more storage, etc. All Turing machines can run the same programs, given enough storage. I don't believe it is possible to implement a mind on a computer, but let's say you could, and you had the algorithm - well then, if you have enough memory, you can run that algorithm on any single processor (even an 8086!). Sure it will miss a lot of external stimuli, but that doesn't matter. I know people who miss a lot of external stimuli, and are still thought of as having minds (more or less :-). You can create an environment for that artificial mind in which all external events are slowed down to match the cpu speed. If it's "thinking" 10^26 times slower than, say, a human brain, that doesn't matter as far as whether it's really conscious in its own time scale. There are also some ideas from science fiction along these lines (sorry can't remember specific examples at the moment), where minds evolve in, say, the interstellar medium, and take thousand of years to complete a thought. IMHO it's this very equivalence of all Turing machines that's one reason they seem entirely wrong for the job of implementing minds. No program that could _in theory_ be run on an 8086 could be a conscious mind. Pat Clancy Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14963