Celestial Weasel (celestialweasel) wrote,
Celestial Weasel

Alan, can you pass over another infinitely long paper tape, there's a good chap

We trace from Mr Orlowski's latest post http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/27/guardian_use_me_as_a_mouthpiece/ (pausing briefly to (a) wonder exactly what AO's point is today (b) muse that Ben Goldacre was not exactly bright saying this (c) wondering where he got this email from) to this http://weblog.ceicher.com/archives/2006/01/a_response_to_kevin_marks_anti.html and thence to this paper http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~dqg/papers/myth.pdf ('The Origins of the Turing Thesis Myth'), a not obviously peer-reviewed or published paper.
As I understand it, the argument seems to be Aha! Church-Turing Thesis applies to functions, but interactive systems aren't functions, take that Alan and Alonzo.
Which is one of (a) an attack on a ludicrous straw-man, (b) true but not interesting or (c) quite profound or at any rate slightly sneaky. I am not sure which. Off the top of my head I am surprised that this isn't a popular attack on hard AI.
'You may be appealing to the Church-Turing Thesis, but that refers to mathematical functions. The real world is not clearly quantized in time and space, therefore rather than a function from Z to Z, interacting with the world is a mapping from R, so your thesis is no match for my real numbers and I therefore contend that my wibbly-wobbly brainy-wainy stuff has magic powers. Or at any rate that you can't appeal to that nice Dr. Turing.'
Or am I missing something?
Obviously you could define some sort of Turing machine where bits of the tape get values from the outside world and compare it to a Universal Register Machine with interrupts etc. and prove their equivalence.
Or you could walk the dog.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.