The Myth of Hypercomputation
Dec. 5th, 2005 03:44 pm[FOM] The Myth of Hypercomputation
This is good stuff. I'll have to look at it later.
Also:
Héctor Zenil & Francisco Hernández-Quiroz - How might the human mind be computationally more powerful than Turing machines?
Finally, there are several arguments by Bringsjord.
I get the impression that all these arguments for hypercomputing minds are made in order to justify "romantic intuitions", i.e. they are not exploratory discoveries, which is what you would expect from unbiased scientists. I confess that I suffer from the symmetrical problem: always trying to justify my computationalist intuitions. (never mind that I may actually be a dualist in philosophy of mind)
One argument against hypercomputation
is that even if someone hands me a hypercomputer (that solves the halting
problem, say), I cannot verify that it really works as advertised from a
finite set of finite measurements. Without the ability to make a finite
verification, I can never really "know" that the hypercomputer is "really
solving" the halting problem.
This is good stuff. I'll have to look at it later.
Also:
Héctor Zenil & Francisco Hernández-Quiroz - How might the human mind be computationally more powerful than Turing machines?
Finally, there are several arguments by Bringsjord.
I get the impression that all these arguments for hypercomputing minds are made in order to justify "romantic intuitions", i.e. they are not exploratory discoveries, which is what you would expect from unbiased scientists. I confess that I suffer from the symmetrical problem: always trying to justify my computationalist intuitions. (never mind that I may actually be a dualist in philosophy of mind)