David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Minds and Machines 18 (1):17-38 (2008)
The classical view of computing positions computation as a closed-box transformation of inputs (rational numbers or finite strings) to outputs. According to the interactive view of computing, computation is an ongoing interactive process rather than a function-based transformation of an input to an output. Specifically, communication with the outside world happens during the computation, not before or after it. This approach radically changes our understanding of what is computation and how it is modeled. The acceptance of interaction as a new paradigm is hindered by the Strong Church–Turing Thesis (SCT), the widespread belief that Turing Machines (TMs) capture all computation, so models of computation more expressive than TMs are impossible. In this paper, we show that SCT reinterprets the original Church–Turing Thesis (CTT) in a way that Turing never intended; its commonly assumed equivalence to the original is a myth. We identify and analyze the historical reasons for the widespread belief in SCT. Only by accepting that it is false can we begin to adopt interaction as an alternative paradigm of computation. We present Persistent Turing Machines (PTMs), that extend TMs to capture sequential interaction. PTMs allow us to formulate the Sequential Interaction Thesis, going beyond the expressiveness of TMs and of the CTT. The paradigm shift to interaction provides an alternative understanding of the nature of computing that better reflects the services provided by today’s computing technology.
|Keywords||Church---Turing Thesis Computation expressiveness Interactive computation Paradigm shift Persistent Turing Machines Sequential Interaction Thesis Strong Church---Turing Thesis Turing Machines|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Pierre De Loor, Kristen Manac’H. & Jacques Tisseau (2009). Enaction-Based Artificial Intelligence: Toward Co-Evolution with Humans in the Loop. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 19 (3):319-343.
Similar books and articles
Itamar Pitowsky (2002). Quantum Speed-Up of Computations. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2002 (3):S168-S177.
Saul A. Kripke (2013). The Church-Turing ‘Thesis’ as a Special Corollary of Gödel’s Completeness Theorem. In B. J. Copeland, C. Posy & O. Shagrir (eds.), Computability: Turing, Gödel, Church, and Beyond. MIT Press.
Peter Kugel (2002). Computing Machines Can't Be Intelligent (...And Turing Said So). Minds and Machines 12 (4):563-579.
Oron Shagrir (2002). Effective Computation by Humans and Machines. Minds and Machines 12 (2):221-240.
B. Jack Copeland (2008). The Church-Turing Thesis. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Hava T. Siegelmann (2003). Neural and Super-Turing Computing. Minds and Machines 13 (1):103-114.
Tim Button (2009). SAD Computers and Two Versions of the Church–Turing Thesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):765-792.
Vincent C. Müller (2011). On the Possibilities of Hypercomputing Supertasks. Minds and Machines 21 (1):83-96.
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic, Semantics of Information as Interactive Computation. Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Philosophy and Informatics 2008.
Paolo Cotogno (2003). Hypercomputation and the Physical Church-Turing Thesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (2):181-223.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #94,724 of 1,413,407 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #154,345 of 1,413,407 )
How can I increase my downloads?