**From:** Christian Szegedy (*szegedy@or.uni-bonn.de*)

**Date:** Thu Oct 07 2004 - 09:56:12 MDT

**Next message:**Christian Szegedy: "Re: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**Previous message:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**In reply to:**Bill Hibbard: "Re: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**Next in thread:**Bill Hibbard: "Re: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**Reply:**Bill Hibbard: "Re: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Bill Hibbard wrote:

*>Penrose makes a very specific mistake: he uses infinite
*

*>Turing machines to model human brains whereas they should
*

*>be modeled by finite state machines. As I show in:
*

*>
*

*> http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/appendix.html
*

*>
*

*>his argument breaks down if the Turing machines are
*

*>replaced by finite state machines.
*

*>
*

*>Cheers,
*

*>Bill
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

I have explicitely stated that I am not convinced by the arguments of

Penrose.

However, it find it not just an overstatement but a completely irrelevant

statetement that he is hopelessly confused about the Theorem of Goedel.

It is a very simple theorem and I am quite sure that

he understands it at least as well as we do. Of course, the way he

applies it

to the real world can and should be disputed. I am not irritated by

criticisms on established scientists, but I don't think it is justified if

*anyone* states that the things are so and so and therefore someone else

(in this case, Penrose, who is a brilliant mathematician) is completely

wrong. A correct attitude is to say, that the observations A,B and C

combined with arguments D,E and F speak against his position on X.

(Exactly the way you did.)

If I am on it, I am not at all sure that the finite-state-machine model is

much better than the Turing machine model. The human mind is in

interaction with a practically infinite universe, so I think that both

models of computations have their specific flaws.

I found your last argument most convincing that the human thinking is

not based on any consistent formal model, but on a combination of

experimentation, probabilistic reasoning and formal logic - an inconsistent

system (not even a model in mathematical sense) but still effective for

a lot of tasks.

However I would not rule out the opinion of Penrose, after all his position

can be correct, even if some of his arguments are not convincing.

**Next message:**Christian Szegedy: "Re: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**Previous message:**Eliezer Yudkowsky: "Re: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**In reply to:**Bill Hibbard: "Re: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**Next in thread:**Bill Hibbard: "Re: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**Reply:**Bill Hibbard: "Re: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT
*