IUBio

Rickert on embedded computation (was re: science of consciousness.)

Neil Rickert rickert at cs.niu.edu
Thu Apr 30 09:58:00 EST 1998


patrick at gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola) writes:
>In article <6i7h70$gij at ux.cs.niu.edu> rickert at cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>andersw+ at pitt.edu (Anders N Weinstein) writes:
>>>If you are including "analog" computation, that may be true.

>>There are things that are being done by the computer on my desk that
>>I could not map into a Turing machine.

>>I'm not talking 'analog'.  My concern is with interaction.  A Turing
>>machine is not interactive.  A person is, and the computer on my desk
>>is.

>I'm not sure that you could be much more incorrect if you tried.

You are entitled to stick to the conventional dogma.

>                                                                  In
>point of fact, the interactivity not only can be, but *IS* mapped
>into a Turing machine (via the RAM formalism, via the implementation
>as a large memory machine).

Pure bull.

>Your CPU, for example, doesn't manipulate the video screen
>directly -- instead it puts a specific set of symbols to a
>specific bit of tape area, and the video hardware performs the
>mapping.

Completely irrelevant.  You demonstrate that how thoroughly you have
missed the point.

In a system running Win95, there is a location in RAM where the mouse
pointer is stored.  The way Win95 manipulates the contents of that
data is by displaying information on the visible screen, and using
the services of the human sitting in front of that screen to move the
mouse around.  Then it use the codes received on the mouse port for
its update.  What is happening in the brain of the human operator has
become an essential part of the computation.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net