From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh Mon Jan  6 10:29:58 EST 1992
Article 2432 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:1656 sci.logic:703 sci.math:5402 comp.ai.philosophy:2432
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh
>From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Human Mind < Finite State Machine (was: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine)
Keywords: the limits of human understanding: no such thing
Message-ID: <1991Dec29.222912.9391@uwm.edu>
Date: 29 Dec 91 22:29:12 GMT
References: <1991Dec27.051804.6985@cambridge.oracorp.com> <1991Dec27.184248.6939@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Dec28.024402.22612@cambridge.oracorp.com>
Sender: news@uwm.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 25

In article <1991Dec27.184248.6939@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>Finally, I believe that the human mind is fundamentally non-algorithmic, so
>the question of an oracle is effectively moot.

In article <1991Dec28.024402.22612@cambridge.oracorp.com> ian@cambridge.oracorp.com (Ian Sutherland) writes:
>I'm not sure what you mean by "nonalgorithmic".  Let me ask you this:
>is there some argument for human minds being nonalgorithmic that would
>not apply as well to a machine?

Here's a more fundamental consideration.  Since the space-time continuum
breaks down beyond the Planck scale and since out lives are finite, then
the brain's dynamics is FINITE.

That simple fact means we aren't even as powerful as the measly, lowly, mere
piddling Finite State Machine!  The question of Turing Machines (never mind
oracles) doesn't even come into play.

Here's another fact: no machine only as powerful as a Finite State Machine can
tell the difference between a FSM and a more powerful model of computation.
That means Turing Machines, Push-Down Automata, and oracles are humanly
indistinguishable!  So we might as well be calling everything a FSM...

Since TM's and PDA's are entirely fictional entities (as far as a human can
tell) used only for the sake of convenience, we might as well be using oracles
too whenever considerations of convenience dictate.


