we're all turing machines. prove me wrong.

>>7767881
stop using words you don't understand, idiot

>>7767885
Protip: You can't.

>>7767881
almost.
Turing is basically related to infinite sets and we're not.
Yet, in practical engineering, yeah, we are, so what.

>>7767881
If we're all Turing machines, then none of us are Turing machines. Turing machinea are designed to fool a human into thinking the machine is human. A Turing machine is not designed to fool other Turing machines.

>>7767899

>being this ignorant

That's the Turing test, dumbfuck

>>7767881
The universe is one big turring machine. We're all just symbols on the tape
>prove me wrong

>>7767881
turing machines can evaluate any computable program.

We can't

File: anni.gif (2MB, 500x390px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x390px

>>7767885
>>7767890

if you cant contribute you should just be quiet and lurk more son

pic related starting with me giving you the finger

File: Gospers_glider_gun.gif (21KB, 250x180px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 250x180px

>>7768122

>I wanna prove you right

>>7768130
this picture made me hard

>>7767881
>>7767881
>>7767881
everything is a turing machine

>>7768124
With a pen and paper we can.

Humans can execute any arbitrary program. The main problem is our memory, which is where the pen and paper come in.

>>7767881
I can't run an algorithm in my head.

Disproved by contradiction.

>>7768297
>I cant run an algorithm in my head.
>knows language
>has motor skills
>combines them to communicate this to other readers on the internet

irony much?

>>7768301
Run a bubblesort in your head then call me, you squibbledobbler

>>7768124
>We can't

Yes we can.

>>7768297
>I can't run an algorithm in my head.

Yes you can.

The base rules that any computer follows are very very simple. Even a small child could follow them, and thus even small children are "turing machines." A human can do anything a computer can do, just much more slowly, in general.

HOWEVER,

We are not JUST turing machines. We are more than that.

File: LfqyX3p.gif (43KB, 500x666px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x666px

>>7768322

>>7768311
You can do it with small arrays mentally, and with pen and paper you can do arbitrary sized arrays.

>>7768322
We are NOT turing machines. Occam's razor. Your theory suggests too many assumptions.

>>7768338
Ok then run a compression algorithm smartass. Or a cryptographic algorithm. Can you still do it mentally?

>>7768111
>>7768111
>>being this ignorant
>That's the Turing test, dumbfuck

welcome to /sci/ :^)

Prove to me that ur right first then we can try to disprove it.

>>7767899

Is your Turing Head is stuck up your Turing Ass again?

>>7768346
Yes. You can mentally do a huffman encoding.

The only limitation of the human mind from being a full Turing Machine is the memory, and this can easily be circumvented by using pen and paper or other devices. Fuck you could even work out some encoding system with rocks or something, just some way to externally store memory.

What if aliens created humans as organic machines?
Are we proof of advanced extraterrestrial life?
The only acceptable answer is "yes".

File: The-Chinese-Room.jpg (91KB, 926x501px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 926x501px

>>7767881
A WILD CHINESE ROOM ARGUMENT APPEARED!

>>7768111 trips
>>7768346
I sure hope people on /sci/ aren't actually reacting seriously to shitposters.
I sure hope that this board is just a clusterfuck of shitposters and funposters responding to one another and not people actually getting emotional and responding to shitposters.
/sci/ is literally shitpost heaven

>>7768124

who made computers? who wrote all the programs?

lol at that bs

>>7767881
I didn't think there were any dissenting opinions on this. Isn't it the basis for AI in the first place

>>7767881
To prove you wrong would be a instruction to follow on my behalf. Which is certainly not required. To say that the human mind is solely limited to following recorded instruction lays heavily on the implication that the past and future are actualities in the sensation of reality.

Imagine a painting for example, the viewer knows only of it's composition by inference, there was never an artist to draw it. One assumes that there is a historical basis for it's origination, but does not considers that the painting is merely an object that is now an item that exists in the entirety of his inspection of reality. The artist is merely the vehicle of the observer's imagination to explain the existence of a piece of art, that had merely been moved virtually, unseen to it's final form of recognition.

My claim is that the mind facilitates the perception of "time"; the stimulation of discrete regions of the brain to conserve a continuity for experience. In an effort to make tangible a viewing of the world chronologically.