From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!ukma!hsdndev!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu Mon Dec  9 10:47:18 EST 1991
Article 1787 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!ukma!hsdndev!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu
>From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Edelman on the Turing machine strawman
Message-ID: <57851@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 1 Dec 91 18:32:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.57851
References: <5743@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1991Nov29.040039.19327@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <5757@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1991Nov29.195200.8911@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 38
Nntp-Posting-Host: libra.wistar.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)

In article <1991Nov29.195200.8911@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, chalmers@bronze (David Chalmers) writes:
>On the other hand, some AI opponents have been very concerned to refute
>the claim.  e.g. see Edelman, TRP p. 30:

>  An analysis of the evolution, development, and structure of brains
>  makes it highly unlikely that they could be Turing Machines.  This
>  is so because of the enormous individual variation in structure
>  that brains possess at a variety of organizational levels. [...]
>  						[Edelman, TRP, p30]

>This seems to be much more concerned with refuting the literal claim
>than the "relevant properties can be captured by" claim.

This is actually just one paragraph in a chapter of "Proposals and
Disclaimers".  I wouldn't say Edelman is very concerned here.  I got
the impression that he was just running down a checklist of things
today's intellectual climate forces him to bother mentioning.  He
is very concerned with his own model.

Of course, one must give credit to those visionary AI proponents who
have thrown out claims that our brains are computers made of meat.
Must me name names?  It's more embarrassment than strawman.

>							   It
>seems utterly irrelevant to the weaker claim.  (Actually, I don't
>really see how the appeal to individual variation is relevant to
>*either* claim, but let that pass for now.)

For the strong claim, the variation argument simply says we're not
born with a ready-made Turing machine, waiting for external world
input.  I don't see how it's possible to refute the weaker claim:
for by using paper and pencil and eraser, I can capture the relevant
features of a Turing machine.  In particular, I don't understand the
appeal of the weaker claim.  You want brains to do more than capture
the relevant properties--you want brains to exploit the properties in
an essential way.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)


