X-Message-Number: 4246
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 10:43:25 -0700
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Learning instead of Attacking

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In #4236 Paul Wakfer <> Wrote:

		>all computers including neural nets are *computationally 
		>equivalent* to Turing machines.
		
I agree.
		
		>But what neither he nor anyone else has done here is to
		>refute, or even address, the statement that neural nets (and
		>parallel machines in general) will always be able to
		>do things faster in principle than Turing machines.
		
First of all, neural nets and parallel computers ARE Turing machines. 
Mathematically and Philosophically the Turing Machine concept 
is much broader than just a gadget with a long paper tape, 
that's only  it's simplest manifestation however all
machines can be mathematically reduced to it.
Second, neural nets are faster than serial computers for many
types of problems but certainly not all problems.
	       
	       >this clearly makes neural nets fundamentally different from
	       >other types of computers.
	       
Fundamentally different? Do you think that computers that use
Gallium Arsenic (GaAs) circuits are fundamentally different than
computers that use Silicon circuits just because they are
faster? If you do then we have a fundamentally different
understanding of the word "fundamental".
		 
		>John really shows his ignore and arrogance. [...] 
		>John, if you would  get the god- damned chip off your 
		>shoulder and stop acting like such a conceited ass, you 
		>just might actually learn a thing or two. 
		 
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the title of your post
"Learning instead of Attacking"?
		 
		>I hope that others who attack before even taking the time to
		>realize that there just might be a lesson to be learned, 
		>will in this instance, at least, learn a lesson from my
		>message.
		 
Yes indeed, one can learn much from your message. I have heard
some say  that Godel's results could not possibly be applicable
to the human mind because that would imply that the mind was
inconsistent, that is, it could hold two contradictory ideas at
the same time and they maintained  that could never  happen. 
You have destroyed that argument by producing a counterexample. 
		 
	       >John, will you please try to  open your mind and widen
	       >your vision? 
	       
Your scholarly  words ,"arrogant", "ignorant", "flippant",
"derisive", "conceited ass", and my favorite  "get the god- damned 
chip off your shoulder", have certainly widened my vision. 
Thank you for giving me a lesson in how to conduct a civilized 
philosophic discussion.
	

				    John K Clark        

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCzAgUBL5VJe303wfSpid95AQF1sgTvY4cK0x4oih4YjcD0s7ykCLjrDLI1+zqG
25NVmU+8/Hkem+THESt08WIK4z/qEM4xJjaExr4ZJCHcvB+a/dAnXD9OBU4O4vd7
mcWb6h1sHZTNDmBCW6kIxa1wAryLA7Cu1PaEAZzCgPmMkEy/64uKUw4+JrYC5gR/
lGTezObDX6WSZ+R4LwEnivNuJ+PpJp2ida4zUCmWJgsDcj19OQI=
=nUSJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4246