🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <37f794$ipf@portal.gmu.edu> herwin@vanish (Harry Erwin) writes:
>From: herwin@vanish (Harry Erwin)
>Subject: Turtles All the Way Down
>Date: 11 Oct 1994 23:31:48 GMT

>Here's the reason for the original 'turtles' post. It has
>to do with Searle, Pribram, and Penrose's argument that the brain can
>do computational things that a digital computer can't. If that is the
>case, then an AI will have to have 'analog' components similar to those
>in the brain, and the question of what those components are becomes
>interesting. Now, consider what processes could result in this. First,
>if the fourth derivatives of the underlying dynamics are bounded, then
>the system can be digitally simulated (using numerical PDE integration).
>Hence, for the SPP argument to hold, the fourth derivatives must be
>unbounded or undefined. That could be a result of significant structural
>discontinuities or possibly a lack of a smallest scale for significant
>structure ('turtles all the way down'). 

>Note that I'm trying to avoid arguments from chaotic dynamics (weak
>based on the Grebogi and Ott results) and from computability (the brain
>as a Turing machine), since neither show the brain doing anything that a
>computer cannot do.

Humans have a brain which can deliver (unbidden?) meaningful tangents to 
thoughts. Humans have a brain which can change its own programming without 
knowing the underlying linguistics which provide the programming fundamentals.

Are light based computers considered to be analog? They have the potential to 
be able to execute simultaneous non parallel instruction sets.