News:

When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...

Main Menu

Dennett and the Turing Thesis

Started by fdesilva, April 16, 2010, 12:45:05 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

fdesilva

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/church-turing/
QuoteMisunderstandings of the Thesis
A myth seems to have arisen concerning Turing's paper of 1936, namely that he there gave a treatment of the limits of mechanism and established a fundamental result to the effect that the universal Turing machine can simulate the behaviour of any machine. The myth has passed into the philosophy of mind, generally to pernicious effect. For example, the Oxford Companion to the Mind states: "Turing showed that his very simple machine ... can specify the steps required for the solution of any problem that can be solved by instructions, explicitly stated rules, or procedures" (Gregory 1987: 784). Dennett maintains that "Turing had proven - and this is probably his greatest contribution - that his Universal Turing machine can compute any function that any computer, with any architecture, can compute" (1991: 215); also that every "task for which there is a clear recipe composed of simple steps can be performed by a very simple computer, a universal Turing machine, the universal recipe-follower" (1978:. xviii). Paul and Patricia Churchland assert that Turing's "results entail something remarkable, namely that a standard digital computer, given only the right program, a large enough memory and sufficient time, can compute any rule-governed input-output function. That is, it can display any systematic pattern of responses to the environment whatsoever" (1990: 26). These various quotations are typical of current writing on the foundations of the computational theory of mind. It seems on the surface unlikely that these authors mean to restrict the general notions of ‘explicitly stated rule’, ‘instruction’, ‘clear recipe composed of simple steps', ‘computer with any architecture’, ‘rule-governed function’ and ‘systematic pattern’ so as to apply only to things that can be obeyed, simulated, calculated, or produced by a machine that implements ‘effective’ methods in Turing's original sense. But unless these notions are restricted in this way from the start, we should reject such claims.
Turing did not show that his machines can solve any problem that can be solved "by instructions, explicitly stated rules, or procedures", nor did he prove that the universal Turing machine "can compute any function that any computer, with any architecture, can compute". He proved that his universal machine can compute any function that any Turing machine can compute; and he put forward, and advanced philosophical arguments in support of, the thesis here called Turing's thesis. But a thesis concerning the extent of effective methods -- which is to say, concerning the extent of procedures of a certain sort that a human being unaided by machinery is capable of carrying out -- carries no implication concerning the extent of the procedures that machines are capable of carrying out, even machines acting in accordance with ‘explicitly stated rules’. For among a machine's repertoire of atomic operations there may be those that no human being unaided by machinery can perform.

.......

The error of confusing the Church-Turing thesis properly so-called with thesis M has led to some remarkable claims in the foundations of psychology. For example, one frequently encounters the view that psychology must be capable of being expressed ultimately in terms of the Turing machine (e.g. Fodor 1981: 130; Boden 1988: 259). To one who makes the error, conceptual space will seem to contain no room for mechanical models of the mind that are not equivalent to Turing machines.Yet it is certainly possible that psychology will find the need to employ models of human cognition that transcend Turing machines.

SSY

I had written a moderately long post detailing the finer points of the differences between Turing machines and certain types of esoteric, posited quantum computers, and how those differences relate to the Turing thesis, but deleted it.

 Ultimately I agree with the conclusion of the author that a deterministic (that is to say, a discrete state Turing machine) is likely unable to model the interactions of a human mind completely and perfectly. I would be even more interested to know why you posted this though? Are you trying to make a point? Posting a quote from an article (admittedly, and article from a very interesting and bountiful source) and then offering no comment, discussion or purpose is a rather curious way in which to raise your post count, why not share your thoughts with us?
Quote from: "Godschild"SSY: You are fairly smart and to think I thought you were a few fries short of a happy meal.
Quote from: "Godschild"explain to them how and why you decided to be athiest and take the consequences that come along with it
Quote from: "Aedus"Unlike atheists, I'm not an angry prick

fdesilva

Quote from: "SSY"I had written a moderately long post detailing the finer points of the differences between Turing machines and certain types of esoteric, posited quantum computers, and how those differences relate to the Turing thesis, but deleted it.

 Ultimately I agree with the conclusion of the author that a deterministic (that is to say, a discrete state Turing machine) is likely unable to model the interactions of a human mind completely and perfectly. I would be even more interested to know why you posted this though? Are you trying to make a point? Posting a quote from an article (admittedly, and article from a very interesting and bountiful source) and then offering no comment, discussion or purpose is a rather curious way in which to raise your post count, why not share your thoughts with us?
Hi
Thanks for the question. My main reason for posting on this website, is to share my personnel reason, for believing in an after life. This belief stems from my own theory on consciousness. I came up with these ideas in 1992. All of it was published in IEEE engineering in medicine and biology in 1996, in the point of view section. It was published a result of the interest shown, to a question I posed a year prior to that ( 1995) . The question I posed is the same as on the thread Consciousness and Special Relativity? under Religion.  A link to this Theory http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm

joeactor

Quote from: "fdesilva"My main reason for posting on this website, is to share my personnel reason, for believing in an after life. This belief stems from my own theory on consciousness. I came up with these ideas in 1992. All of it was published in IEEE engineering in medicine and biology in 1996, in the point of view section. It was published a result of the interest shown, to a question I posed a year prior to that ( 1995) . The question I posed is the same as on the thread Consciousness and Special Relativity? under Religion.  A link to this Theory http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I'm sorry, but many of your posts thus far have that "wall of text" feel and seem to amble around in a very complex way, yet not demonstrate much of anything.

The closest thing I've seen to this before is:
http://www.timecube.com/

If you have a point to make, please post your ideas in a concise, easy to understand form... then follow it up with links to any supporting material.

Reading through page after page of over-complicated machinations with no stated goal does not help whatever cause or point you're attempting to put forward for us to discuss.

(of course that's just my personal opinion),
JoeActor

Whitney

Quote from: "joeactor"Reading through page after page of over-complicated machinations with no stated goal does not help whatever cause or point you're attempting to put forward for us to discuss.

Agreed, it's also why I've quit reading those posts; I don't have time to read something that is essentially a ramble and doesn't reach a conclusion....short, sweet, and concise is nice; then as necessary expand with concise answers when people ask questions.