From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Theoretical Computer Science
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:22:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.062028.2444@sobeco.com>, ladislas@sobeco.com (Ladislas A.) writes in part:
|> In <Bz08wK.18t@cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1g2jg7INNdai@iraul1.ira.uka.de>, s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes in part:
|> 
|> >Further, it is also asserted
|> >that human brains are complex instances of such machines.  These
|> >hypotheses allow statements to be made about the inherent solvability
|> >or impossibility of problems.  Such statements are believed to apply
|> >to ALL computers, including human brains.
|> 
|> 1) The human brain is not a computer!  It is a lot more complex than any
|> machine.  True, the brain stores information, controls bodily functions,
|> and generaly acts as a computer would do.  But it is also the center of
|> emotional manifestations, the center of imagination.  When a computer is
|> able to feel, imagine, contemplate death, dream, etc., then the comparison
|> will be possible.
The BRAIN may be a computer.  The human EXPERIENCES you cite are not
understood to the point that you can show that computers can't expereince
them.  In any case, the fact that humans are not identical to computers
is not relevant to the claim that the BRAIN is essentially similar
to a computer.

|> precognitions are mostly fleeting images of something that can happen.  It is
|> not like turning on a t.v. and choosing the proper time and event as one would
|> select a channel.  ALL the claims of precognition that I have heard were
|> described as an impression that was strong enough to unnerve, the images at
|> best vague, the event untimeable.  It is more like a "feeling" that something 
|> will happen.  Precognition, as with telepathy, is nowhere near as precise as
|> what county-fair-psychics will promote in their shows.
|> 
|> You assume too much and know too little.  Sorry!  but someone had to tell you.

Where in the world do you get this information about precognition?  Why
are your claims more accurate than mine?  Please show me evidence for
what you say precogintion is and isn't.

You are the one who is ASSUMING that they know what percognition is
and isn't.  As far as I'm concerned, precognition DOESN'T exist.
My hypothetical argument was based on the assumptions stated.

|> ESP:  Extra Sensory Perception.  Not Extremely Sophisticated Powers.
|> The first step for any machine is to be autonomous.  Meaning that it must
|> seek through it's own will things to perceive.  A machine that will, of its
|> own accord, seek information that it will need in order to survive, is not
|> even conceivable theoretically with our current technology.
1.  Who said anything about "current technology"?
2.  If you can conceive of ESP being real, then you sure can conceive
    of mechanisms by which it might work that might apply to machines.

|> You are the only person here who claims that.  Everyone else seems content
|> saying that ESP is neat but unreliable.
Not everybody.  A tiny minority says that ESP is pure wishful thinking.

|> >Have you got a formal model of THAT?  :-)
|> 
|> Yes!  It's called "God"!  At least that what you seem to imply that ESP
|> should be if it exists.
Which, of course, is no coincidence--most belief in ESP is a form
of secular religion, with "scientific" trappings used to help shore
up age-old mystic concepts.

|> >I think this is cool stuff, anyway.  I really won't mind if/when
|> >you guys show where I'm wrong, because it's a pretty good exercise.
|> 
|> You're wrong in that you confuse "ability" with "omnipotence".
|> Try this for exercise:
|> 
|> First postulate:  men can solve complex mathematical equations.
|> Second postulate:  computers can solve complex mathematical equations.
|> Conclusion:  therefore, computers are men.
|> 
|> This sounds like the reasoning you use.
Change the conclusion to:
Conclusion:  human equation solving is similar and possibly fundamentally
  identical to machine equation solving.
A reasonable conclusion, that might be empirically right or wrong.

Your claims that I am wrong are based on your claims to "know" how
ESP/telepathy/precognition work.  Since you are completely mistaken
in those claims, you have hardly refuted my claims.

Rather than pound away on the same issues, perhaps it would be
better to take what YOU say precognition is and see what its
implications for the TOC.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal