X-Message-Number: 14997
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 06:22:17 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: more on computers and brains

Hi everyone!

Among the problems with identifying brains with Turing computers one is 
very simple: the original idea of a Turing computer is of a computer
which does no more than calculate. It does not hunt animals or raise
and use a crop of wheat. At a minimum this means that any attempt to
map human brains into computers would have to assume that these computers
also had many peripherals ... most of our processing simply could not
happen if we were brains without all the connections we have.

Moreover, that special feature of brains also means that we cannot
be thought about only as a COMPUTING machine. We also take input and 
produce output, which has a special character in that all our thinking
depends on the simple, NONlinguistic versions of input. Yes, because we
are human beings rather than chickens, we do have elaborate systems for
producing and understanding complex linguistic output (and input). 
The systems are absent from current computers, and have turned out to
be difficult to produce at the level at which we human beings use them.
Most important, our linguistic systems ARE NOT THE BASIC SYSTEMS WITH
WHICH WE DO OUR BASIC PROCESSING. It's precisely because of this fact
that we can do curious things with language, such as decide on the
existence of black swans (despite all previous definitions of swans).

So far the only person on Cryonet who has come close to answering my
question about whether or not humans may be considered Turing machines
is Mike Perry. His references to computer material, however, need much
more in that they do not really discuss candidates for Turing machines
like human beings. It seems to simply be assumed that thinking requires
a Turing machine. Maybe so, maybe not, but an explicit demonstration
WHICH uses the features of brains which I have explained in previous
messages would prove useful, one way or another. Does all thinking
map easily into a Turing machine? Does it map at all? On the simplest
level, the fact that we are PARALLEL machines for which TIME is important
should tell us that in at least one way we differ from the original
Turing machines. And are there other levels?

		Best wishes and long long life to all,

			Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14997