3 ms·
I won't go into details on why the brain isn't a UTC - this is useful: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-brain-a-turing-machine https://www.quora.com/Is-the-brain-a-
by jamesblonde 10y ago
I won't go into details on why the brain isn't a UTC - this is useful:
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-brain-a-turing-machine https://www.quora.com/Is-the-brain-a-turing-machine
- barrkel 10y agoCare to mention which reply you think is insightful? I didn't find much of interest at the end of that link; some say yes, some say no, and some answer the inverse but related question (can a Turing machine emulate the brain - because obviously people can laboriously emulate Turing machines). If you think the brain can compute something a Turing machine can't, it would be interesting to link to something that justifies the position (I personally think a TM is enough).
- jamesblonde 10y agoI don't think a brain can compute something a TM can compute. The brain, however, is not a simple universal turing machine in the sense that it doesn't have a finite set of instructions and an infinite tape-band. I don't subscribe to the Penrose school of thought on this matter.
- barrkel 10y agoWell clearly the brain isn't infinite, but nor is any Turing Machine we implement. When we say something like C is Turing complete, we don't mean that any correct implementation can compute what a TM can compute, because no implementation is finite. Eventually both the stack will be exhausted and malloc() will fail; there's a finite amount of state available on any concrete hardware. My point being that that seems to be such a trivially true statement - conveying no information - so that we must understand the sentence to mean something else; that it can compute what a TM can compute, up to some arbitrary limit related to available state. So, would you say that the brain isn't Turing complete either?