* * * SC2 Mafia Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49810 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 11th, 2022 02:33 AM Title : WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Title -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 11th, 2022 05:05 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Is the brain a machine that operates according to an algorithm? I have doubts. Turing's halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem are strong arguments against this notion. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Auteur : SuperJack Date : March 12th, 2022 06:32 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I'm confused. Is this a question? Or like the start of an explanation? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Auteur : OzyWho Date : March 13th, 2022 11:59 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE This title sort of implies that there'd be a thought process to read. Turing's halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem are strong arguments against this notion. This sentence shows the beginning or the basis of a thought process. But where's the actual thoughts process? ;( For example, I can't just say Varcron is scummy because he made x post. I mean I could but much good it'd do? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Auteur : theoneceko Date : March 14th, 2022 06:23 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE lmfao u guys Oberon i hope this is the case -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Auteur : Helz Date : March 14th, 2022 10:34 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I do not know if the mind is a computer or not but the way it functions is how we are modeling the next generation of computers and is the leading design factor (to my limited understanding) in how we run AI through either analog or digital functions. Maybe this will give you some answers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVsUOuSjvcg -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 15th, 2022 04:16 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I was trying to start a debate about this but I don't know how to phrase my thoughts. I don't believe the mind is a machine because of the way I think, and the way others think. I often get stumped by logic where it seems logic leads to two mutually contradictory conclusions, there is something other than logic that often leads me to either pick one of them or formulate a new conclusion, and this something is NOT from a formal system You can do something without understanding what it is, and there's a very clear difference between doing with understanding and without, in behaviour. Give someone a list of instructions to follow without telling them what they do or what they're for. They will follow them and seem intelligent if you gave them something "smart" to do, but not have a fucking clue of what they're doing. It's like studying for an exam; there's a huge difference if you do it mechanically, and if you actually understand the material. This is basically what The Chinese Room Argument states, that mere algorithmic computation can never lead to understanding (and it is in effect devoid of "meaning"). If you were to accept the premise that mere computation is enough for understanding and consciousness, then it must follow that it does not matter how the computation is performed. This way, you can have a piece of paper that is conscious, or a system of water pipes that happens to implement an extremely complicated program. This is clearly absurd. On the other hand, if you were to accept the premise that the mind is indeed not a machine, then we have to extend the hierarchy of computational machines (and the definition of "computation") to include the mind as well. The hierarchy would now include the human mind as a hyper-turing machine (I suspect two or three levels up in the hierarchy compared to Turing machines, to leave space for animals and babies). This leads to some interesting conjectures in ethics and philosophy. Firstly, it implies that there is no single "rule" of morality that applies in all scenarios; not even multiple ones that apply in different contexts, but rather something that is a kind of "rule" that is non-algorithmic in nature. This does not necessarily mean that morality is subjective; it could be entirely objective but uncomputable by algorithmic means (would anyone even be surprised about that?). Second, it implies that the set of all possible thoughts humans can have is larger in size than the set of rational/integral/natural numbers, possibly as large as the set of irrationals, because otherwise Turing machines would be capable of generating all possible thoughts, as a kind of "language". Third, if you were to extend the notion of the halting problem to human beings (it has already been done for hypothetical hyper-turing machines, such as Oracle machines), then it might be the case that in the interactions between two or multiple human beings, the "optimal" solution in all scenarios (or any solution at all) is undecidable. Maybe the game of Mafia is undecidable, has anyone ever thought about that? :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Auteur : OzyWho Date : March 15th, 2022 06:35 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE What's the meaning of the word "machine" in the context of this topic? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 15th, 2022 06:41 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE What's the meaning of the word "machine" in the context of this topic? Something that operates according to an algorithm. Basically the question is "brain = math?" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Auteur : WrathCyber Date : March 15th, 2022 09:36 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE The brain is a complex organ. It somehow allows us to be conscious of our surroundings, but it is a mystery to what really contributes to this casuality. My favorite description of this is in the book "The Name of The Wind", where one of the characters describes it as such: "Each of us has two minds: a waking mind and a sleeping mind. Our waking mind is what thinks and talks and reasons. But the sleeping mind is more powerful. It sees deeply to the heart of things. It is the part of us that dreams. It remembers everything. It gives us intuition." I'd like to propose this thought onto the table: the brain exists on a sort of limbo on the edge of chaos. Without order, there would be no computational ability. Without randomness, there would be rational thought nor imaginative ability. Somehow, these two factors by itself wouldn't be sufficient enough for sophisticated lifeforms, but when put together they complement each other and bring the perfect balance. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Auteur : OzyWho Date : March 15th, 2022 09:58 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Something that operates according to an algorithm. Basically the question is "brain = math?" I guess you could call the topic to be free will vs determinism, right? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 15th, 2022 10:36 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I guess you could call the topic to be free will vs determinism, right? I think that's a separate question. It is possible for the brain to be both deterministic and yet non-computational in nature, and I suspect that this is indeed the case, as the mind appears to be non-random. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Auteur : OzyWho Date : March 15th, 2022 06:03 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I do not know if the mind is a computer or not but the way it functions is how we are modeling the next generation of computers and is the leading design factor (to my limited understanding) in how we run AI through either analog or digital functions. Maybe this will give you some answers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVsUOuSjvcg I liked the explanation of the limitations of digital for AI and how analog can help overcome those. I liked the display, early in the vid, of how complicated are the output actions of even a single neuron in the brain, and we've bilions of them. The AI's ability/method of recognizing things from inputs (vision now, betcha smell touch sound will be next?) seems very human-brain-like. But AFAIK that's where AI's humanlikeness ends. The way AI's learn games is just trial and error a bilion times. You put that AI in the same situation and it will do the same action each time (Leela Chess doesn't count, the slight RNG is artificial I believe). We learn in more ways than just that, and our actions on the tiniest of detail are not reproducible. I was trying to start a debate about this but I don't know how to phrase my thoughts. I don't believe the mind is a machine because of the way I think, and the way others think. I often get stumped by logic where it seems logic leads to two mutually contradictory conclusions, there is something other than logic that often leads me to either pick one of them or formulate a new conclusion, and this something is NOT from a formal system I agree that humans are not as logic, reason and rationality based as we ourselves would like to believe Humor me this: Ok, machines would always get to the same output with the same inputs, a person could and sometimes would get to different conclusions with the same information presented depending on the day. Why do you think that is? What do you think of the idea that it's due to the fact that we have billions and billions of inputs which can never be the same and that's the reason our outputs can be different with the same inputs of information? In otherwords, could you agree with the thought that we ARE operating according to an algorithm but it's just that the number of inputs we are operating on is insane and therefore unreproducible? It seems to me that you're taking only information inputs into account and noticed that the output is determined by more than just our "algorithm of logic" (quotation marks because unsure of term used). We operate on more "algorithms" than just our logic. We operate on more inputs than just information. My view is that both machines and humans operate on the input-algorithm-output basis, we're just more complex. But like, we certainly aren't "computational in nature", as I understand the phrase, because we operate on more than just information and logic. Maybe operating on information and logic is what it means to be a machine? In that case our brains are certainly not machines. :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 17th, 2022 03:24 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I liked the explanation of the limitations of digital for AI and how analog can help overcome those. I liked the display, early in the vid, of how complicated are the output actions of even a single neuron in the brain, and we've bilions of them. The AI's ability/method of recognizing things from inputs (vision now, betcha smell touch sound will be next?) seems very human-brain-like. But AFAIK that's where AI's humanlikeness ends. The way AI's learn games is just trial and error a bilion times. You put that AI in the same situation and it will do the same action each time (Leela Chess doesn't count, the slight RNG is artificial I believe). We learn in more ways than just that, and our actions on the tiniest of detail are not reproducible. I agree that humans are not as logic, reason and rationality based as we ourselves would like to believe Humor me this: Ok, machines would always get to the same output with the same inputs, a person could and sometimes would get to different conclusions with the same information presented depending on the day. Why do you think that is? What do you think of the idea that it's due to the fact that we have billions and billions of inputs which can never be the same and that's the reason our outputs can be different with the same inputs of information? In otherwords, could you agree with the thought that we ARE operating according to an algorithm but it's just that the number of inputs we are operating on is insane and therefore unreproducible? It seems to me that you're taking only information inputs into account and noticed that the output is determined by more than just our "algorithm of logic" (quotation marks because unsure of term used). We operate on more "algorithms" than just our logic. We operate on more inputs than just information. My view is that both machines and humans operate on the input-algorithm-output basis, we're just more complex. But like, we certainly aren't "computational in nature", as I understand the phrase, because we operate on more than just information and logic. Maybe operating on information and logic is what it means to be a machine? In that case our brains are certainly not machines. :P I think the problem is a bit more fundamental than that. Algorithms are too restrictive for human thinking to be based on them. No situation is the same because people adapt and learn, and possess understanding of the kind computers can never have. I mean just think about it. If you are just executing algorithms, what your basically asking is to literally have a list of instructions for every single possible situation, and that's just not tenable. Literally progressing through life mechanically as though it were math. There is a word for such people who live mechanically; they are called idiots. And even idiots are more sophisticated than any computer. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Auteur : OzyWho Date : March 17th, 2022 03:34 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I think the problem is a bit more fundamental than that. Algorithms are too restrictive for human thinking to be based on them. No situation is the same because people adapt and learn, and possess understanding of the kind computers can never have. I mean just think about it. If you are just executing algorithms, what your basically asking is to literally have a list of instructions for every single possible situation, and that's just not tenable. Literally progressing through life mechanically as though it were math. There is a word for such people who live mechanically; they are called idiots. And even idiots are more sophisticated than any computer. Obviously our "algorithms" change nonstop. Get burnt touching the stove and you won't touch it again. I don't agree something to have to be not changing for it to exist. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 19th, 2022 08:17 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I'm very surprised this topic has only 13 posts. On skwirl we had several pages worth of convo when this topic came up. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : March 19th, 2022 01:51 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I was trying to start a debate about this but I don't know how to phrase my thoughts. I don't believe the mind is a machine because of the way I think, and the way others think. I often get stumped by logic where it seems logic leads to two mutually contradictory conclusions, there is something other than logic that often leads me to either pick one of them or formulate a new conclusion, and this something is NOT from a formal system You can do something without understanding what it is, and there's a very clear difference between doing with understanding and without, in behaviour. Give someone a list of instructions to follow without telling them what they do or what they're for. They will follow them and seem intelligent if you gave them something "smart" to do, but not have a fucking clue of what they're doing. It's like studying for an exam; there's a huge difference if you do it mechanically, and if you actually understand the material. This is basically what The Chinese Room Argument states, that mere algorithmic computation can never lead to understanding (and it is in effect devoid of "meaning"). If you were to accept the premise that mere computation is enough for understanding and consciousness, then it must follow that it does not matter how the computation is performed. This way, you can have a piece of paper that is conscious, or a system of water pipes that happens to implement an extremely complicated program. This is clearly absurd. On the other hand, if you were to accept the premise that the mind is indeed not a machine, then we have to extend the hierarchy of computational machines (and the definition of "computation") to include the mind as well. The hierarchy would now include the human mind as a hyper-turing machine (I suspect two or three levels up in the hierarchy compared to Turing machines, to leave space for animals and babies). This leads to some interesting conjectures in ethics and philosophy. Firstly, it implies that there is no single "rule" of morality that applies in all scenarios; not even multiple ones that apply in different contexts, but rather something that is a kind of "rule" that is non-algorithmic in nature. This does not necessarily mean that morality is subjective; it could be entirely objective but uncomputable by algorithmic means (would anyone even be surprised about that?). Second, it implies that the set of all possible thoughts humans can have is larger in size than the set of rational/integral/natural numbers, possibly as large as the set of irrationals, because otherwise Turing machines would be capable of generating all possible thoughts, as a kind of "language". Third, if you were to extend the notion of the halting problem to human beings (it has already been done for hypothetical hyper-turing machines, such as Oracle machines), then it might be the case that in the interactions between two or multiple human beings, the "optimal" solution in all scenarios (or any solution at all) is undecidable. Maybe the game of Mafia is undecidable, has anyone ever thought about that? :) A large part of your argument seems to hinge on you not knowing enough about psychology and/or neurology to understand the workings of your own brain. It's very odd that you take that to the conclusion that you do, and perhaps would be more readily solved by studying psychology and neurology, as well as accepting that those two fields still cannot yet answer every single process about how a human mind works because minds are complex. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 21st, 2022 07:41 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE A large part of your argument seems to hinge on you not knowing enough about psychology and/or neurology to understand the workings of your own brain. It's very odd that you take that to the conclusion that you do, and perhaps would be more readily solved by studying psychology and neurology, as well as accepting that those two fields still cannot yet answer every single process about how a human mind works because minds are complex. And what are these things in psychology and neuroscience that I need to know that would convince me otherwise? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : March 21st, 2022 02:01 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE And what are these things in psychology and neuroscience that I need to know that would convince me otherwise? Oh no mate I have no idea, I know jack shit about psychology and neuroscience. It just seems to me, from reading your post, that your point is "I don't understand why I think the thinks that I do" and your conclusion is "the mind is not a machine" when it should be "I should learn psychology to learn more about the thinks". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Auteur : Helz Date : March 24th, 2022 02:33 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I think that's a separate question. It is possible for the brain to be both deterministic and yet non-computational in nature, and I suspect that this is indeed the case, as the mind appears to be non-random. I have no idea if cognition has some aspect of random like we seen in quantum physics or if its deterministic like a computer. Honestly I do not think that question has been answered at all and social sciences are in their early stages of development as a science. A bit of a topic in itself but if you look at entire fields and information theory generally sciences evolve over time going from a questionable pseudoscience to some quantified and verified data. Some parts of your question here merits newton's flaming laser sword. There is no data I know of in existence to validate any opinion on the subject. The two edges I know of would be between how AI processes are modeled and some of the help I have gotten over the years from the Center of Excellence in Waco. The approaches they have had for treatment of PTSD and TBI have been very elegant although I am deeply angry about how the central Texas VA has crippled their program. Back on topic deterministic cognition really changed the way I think. When I was exposed to the idea that every thought is some combination of previous experiences and current circumstances it changed the way I thought. I intentionally began seeking out ways to 'think outside the box' because I thought I recognized what that box was. I am not sure if I was right so many years ago but I certainly have been able to think differently than most people over the years. I would say that even if our thought processes are somewhat deterministic we still have free will given our ability to steer that combination of factors. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 24th, 2022 11:21 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I have no idea if cognition has some aspect of random like we seen in quantum physics or if its deterministic like a computer. Honestly I do not think that question has been answered at all and social sciences are in their early stages of development as a science. A bit of a topic in itself but if you look at entire fields and information theory generally sciences evolve over time going from a questionable pseudoscience to some quantified and verified data. Some parts of your question here merits newton's flaming laser sword. There is no data I know of in existence to validate any opinion on the subject. The two edges I know of would be between how AI processes are modeled and some of the help I have gotten over the years from the Center of Excellence in Waco. The approaches they have had for treatment of PTSD and TBI have been very elegant although I am deeply angry about how the central Texas VA has crippled their program. Back on topic deterministic cognition really changed the way I think. When I was exposed to the idea that every thought is some combination of previous experiences and current circumstances it changed the way I thought. I intentionally began seeking out ways to 'think outside the box' because I thought I recognized what that box was. I am not sure if I was right so many years ago but I certainly have been able to think differently than most people over the years. I would say that even if our thought processes are somewhat deterministic we still have free will given our ability to steer that combination of factors. Which parts? :) The best argument I've heard of in favour of my opinion is probably the Chinese room argument. Searle makes some points I don't entirely agree with though; while he does agree with me that machines cannot have understanding, he makes this weird (in my opinion, anyway) distinction between "having understanding" and "acting intelligently", in the sense that, machines, although deprived of understanding, can act intelligently, which is a bit of a weird conclusion to derive. In that sense he appears to be conflating consciousness and understanding. Penrose has a very similar position to me, namely he believes that machines can have neither understanding nor act intelligently; so therefore you would be able to tell, by the means of some kind of test (a Turing test, if you'd like), whether an object has understanding or not (he goes further than this and says that they would probably also be conscious, like you and me, and I agree with this; however, this is mostly based on aesthetics as I don't think there's any hard evidence for or against it). Other than those two, the only people who've sorta talked about this from the anti-computationalist side are Gödel, Leibniz (he was a dualist) and Putnam. I've not read anything Putnam has said so I'm not familiar with his arguments. It's interesting to see that this view is not only incredibly fringe, but nobody seems to be trying to argue in favour of the anti-computationalist view; everybody's accepted the computationalist theory, seemingly without even considering whether it is correct or not. Certainly, my course programme has never had a debate over whether or not artificial intelligence actually is intelligence. Everyone sorts of accepts this assumption but nobody questions it. It's weird. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 24th, 2022 11:43 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE And yes I agree that thinking is deterministic. I am aware there is little hard evidence out there but I am pretty convinced of this as, the more intelligent people are, you'd expect them to be more random, which is a bit strange. I mean how could something that gets more random be better? Shouldn't it get... worse, approaching a 50/50 split? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 25th, 2022 07:38 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE An algorithm with changing inputs and outputs is still an algorithm, and can therefore be simulated by a static algorithm, because the two classes are equivalent in computational capability. Hence, a non-computational mind cannot be one along those lines. There is a countable number of algorithms. You can have a Turing machine that simply generates those algorithms - and inputs and outputs - of the mind, and runs them entirely deterministically. The number of thoughts a non-computational mind could generate is uncountable, because again otherwise a Turing machine would be able to o generate them. Hence: not an algorithm. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Auteur : Helz Date : March 27th, 2022 07:14 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Which parts? :) The general premise of free will vs determinism. There is just no way for us to test it. We could equally question if reality itself is deterministic and (from a math base) argue between deterministic Newtonian physics Quantum physics disregard for deterministic law. But at the end of the day its just speculation. I personally find open speculation that can not hope to solve an issue very interesting but I also think this question is not one I can take a solid stance on. The question also reminds me of the theory that we do not exist and are all a computer program running a simulation. Are we? I doubt it but have no justification to say its impossible. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Auteur : OzyWho Date : March 27th, 2022 08:01 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE The question also reminds me of the theory that we do not exist and are all a computer program running a simulation. Are we? I doubt it but have no justification to say its impossible. Wasn't there some probability that says it is more likely the case than not, with the only assumption that have to make is that it's possible? :thinking: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 27th, 2022 01:14 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE The general premise of free will vs determinism. There is just no way for us to test it. We could equally question if reality itself is deterministic and (from a math base) argue between deterministic Newtonian physics Quantum physics disregard for deterministic law. But at the end of the day its just speculation. I personally find open speculation that can not hope to solve an issue very interesting but I also think this question is not one I can take a solid stance on. The question also reminds me of the theory that we do not exist and are all a computer program running a simulation. Are we? I doubt it but have no justification to say its impossible. Hmm well my argument is not really about free will vs determinism. We could still entirely be hyper-Turing machines and lack free will. I of course do not believe this is the case but it wasn't the main point of my argument. Like you could argue our intelligence is "deterministic" and thus we lack free will but that does not necessarily mean our intelligence is mechanistic. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 27th, 2022 01:22 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Wasn't there some probability that says it is more likely the case than not, with the only assumption that have to make is that it's possible? :thinking: I don't see how its even possible to put a probability on something like that. Probability is cogent on the assumptions and observations you have (made), and since we have never observed a simulation world and do not know what one would look like to compare, we cannot assign a probability to that, not even a non-numerical one. I question however on the philosophical aspect of things what the difference between a simulation and and a universe created by a Supreme Being is. The Supreme Being dreamt it up from nothing. Isn't that a simulation? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 27th, 2022 01:25 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE If you were to ask me, in the hypothetical hierarchy of computational machines that is extended by hyper-Turing Machines, God would be the ultimate hyper-turing Machine, infinitely capable of all possible computations. In light of this, you can view God having created the Universe as a kind of "hyper-computation" and, since simulations must be the result of some computation, the very boring answer is that, yes, we live in a simulation :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 27th, 2022 01:39 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Also Ozy I just realised I didn't explain the terms I used properly. An algorithm is a list of instructions, but the problem is that, no matter how much you vary this so-called input/output that humans have, it still is an algorithm, even if it somehow "changes". If the derivative of the algorithm, if you want to call it that (the "rule" according to which the algorithm changes, basically), is still algorithmic and decidable by Turing machines, then in the end what you would have is still an algorithm, and therefore the brain would still be a machine. The only way in which having a changing algorithm matters is if the rule according to which the algorithm changes is not computable by a Turing machine, because in that case, it really is the "changing algorithm" doing the heavy lifting and turning our Turing machine into a hyper computer. Some other terms: A Turing machine. You do not really need to know the formal description; I know it and trust me, its not even useful to know the definition because it is not immediately apparent why Turing machines have the capabilities that they do. If you still want to know what a Turing machine is: it's a hypothetical computer with a finite tape that can be extended indefinitely, with a tape reader that can move left or right across the tape, one cell at a time, and that can read and write symbols from/to the tape. It also has a (finite) set of possible states that it can be in at any given point. At each time step, the machine does the following, in this order: 1. Write a new symbol or erase the symbol at the current tape reader's position 2. Move the tape head to the left, right, or stay at current position 3. Change its state to a new one or keep the same state It has a giant table of transitions for each combination of symbol read and state. If you're left feeling confused after having read that, trust me, you're not the only one. The only reason I'm arguing against it is because I have programmed a decent amount and I know what Turing machines are capable of doing, because they are exactly as powerful as traditional programming languages. Technically they aren't as powerful as programming languages, because Turing machines need an infinite or finite but infinitely expandable amount of memory, which, obviously, no programming language can have. But that's a very boring requirement that nobody gives a shit about, so... It is quite plain that the brain is at least as capable as a (finite) Turing machine, because you can simulate a Turing machine by hand. Literally. It's not even hard, just boring and time-consuming to do. Turning oneself into an infinite Turing complete machine can be done by merely gaining access to an infinite amount of paper for you to write stuff on. It's not interesting :) And it is quite obvious the brain is at least equivalent to a finite Turing machine (also known as a Linear Bounded Automaton), because Swiss German, the language spoken in Switzerland, is known to be unparsable to anything less powerful than a Linear Bounded Automaton. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Auteur : Lumi Date : March 27th, 2022 05:32 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE To be clear, are you discussing whether or not you think the brain is deterministic? From your posts it sounds like that's not what you're interested in, what is it exactly and succinctly that you mean? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 28th, 2022 12:34 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE To be clear, are you discussing whether or not you think the brain is deterministic? From your posts it sounds like that's not what you're interested in, what is it exactly and succinctly that you mean? I am discussing whether the mind can be reduced to a Turing machine or not. Nothing to do with determinism -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Auteur : Lumi Date : March 28th, 2022 05:26 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I am discussing whether the mind can be reduced to a Turing machine or not. Nothing to do with determinism Turing machines are deterministic so asking if the mind can be reduced to a Turing machine is analogous, is it not? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 28th, 2022 06:34 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Turing machines are deterministic so asking if the mind can be reduced to a Turing machine is analogous, is it not? Not necessarily, not if the mind is deterministic but isn't executing a computation. For example, a lightbulb that turns on if a given program will halt is deterministic but cannot be executing a computation. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Auteur : Lumi Date : March 28th, 2022 07:26 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Not necessarily, not if the mind is deterministic but isn't executing a computation. For example, a lightbulb that turns on if a given program will halt is deterministic but cannot be executing a computation. Your analogy is interesting. Can the human mind be reduced to a Turing Machine is not necessarily a "yes" if the mind is deterministic, eg your analogy. But if the answer to the question of if the human mind can be reduced to a Turing machine is yes, then that implies the mind is deterministic. And I believe you do not think the mind is deterministic and therefore you must also believe the answer to the question of if the mind can be reduced to a Turing machine must be "no" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 28th, 2022 02:13 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I believe the mind is deterministic though. I have big problems pbelieving intellect and genius is the result of random chance. Why, does that mean Einstein was the most random of us all? So my position is that the mind is non-computational and deterministic, and I am using the term here strictly with regards to the operation of the mind without considering the whole free will vs determinism she-bang. (I believe we do have free will even if we are deterministic creatures FTR, but let's not get into that). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Auteur : Lumi Date : March 28th, 2022 03:46 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I believe the mind is deterministic though. I have big problems pbelieving intellect and genius is the result of random chance. Why, does that mean Einstein was the most random of us all? So my position is that the mind is non-computational and deterministic, and I am using the term here strictly with regards to the operation of the mind without considering the whole free will vs determinism she-bang. (I believe we do have free will even if we are deterministic creatures FTR, but let's not get into that). The mind being deterministic and different people having different intellects are completely unrelated. The half life of an isotope of Uranium-235 is 700,000,000 years, The half life of an isotope of Uranium-234 is 245,500 years, But radioactive decay is non-deterministic. And yet they have different rates of decay. Just a trivial example of how non-deterministic entities can have different higher level properties. === Additionally the idea that the mind is deterministic is a largely unfounded in the era of quantum mechanics and chaos theory. The mind is certainly a chaotic system, with chaotic systems all the way down, until you reach the quantum realm where quantum uncertainty kicks any notion of determinism out. Whether or not quantum uncertainty mixed with chaos theory is the recipe for free will or not is a more interesting philosophical question, but the mind and the world are most certainly not deterministic, at least not in the standard sense of the word. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Auteur : Helz Date : March 29th, 2022 03:31 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I am discussing whether the mind can be reduced to a Turing machine or not. Nothing to do with determinism I feel like thats a pretty simple question. With the technology we have now absolutely no. 'If' we were to assume potential development of new types of computing technology through mechanical, biological, or quantum methods 'and' we are to assume the mind is deterministic 'then' yes. It should be possible If we assume thought itself is deterministic then many other forms of computing should also be able to replicate the human mind. I feel like its a relevant question of if reality itself is deterministic (enter ontological and quantum theorys) first but again, we are just too ignorant and know too little to begin to do more than just throw a bunch of 'what ifs' at those. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 29th, 2022 06:57 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I agree but for the completely opposite reason. I do not see any way of bridging this gap between our reasons as I've already exhausted my lines of reasoning as to why I don't believe the brain is equivalent to a Turing machine. I reiterate that the Chinese room argument is likely the strongest argument against artificial intelligence and consequently also against the idea of mechanical intelligence. The only thing I can do at this point is attempt to explain my argument more thoroughly, because I am not entirely sure it's been understood properly, but I will not do that because it's far too complicated to do. Unless someone specifically asks me to do so As to how a hypothetical hyper computer would function, that would be anybody's guess. It clearly cannot function along the lines of any physical laws we are aware of now, as they are all computable (barring chaotic conditions which sometimes introduce undecidability) Also Lag I am not sure the idea that the mind is deterministic is entirely unfounded. Without going into the physical aspects of the brain and concentrating strictly on the functionality, it seems hard to believe intelligence could be the result of random chance. Certainly we do not always understand why we act the way we do, but there are many things we do not understand and most are not random lol. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Auteur : Helz Date : March 29th, 2022 07:30 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I agree but for the completely opposite reason. I do not see any way of bridging this gap between our reasons as I've already exhausted my lines of reasoning as to why I don't believe the brain is equivalent to a Turing machine. I reiterate that the Chinese room argument is likely the strongest argument against artificial intelligence and consequently also against the idea of mechanical intelligence. The only thing I can do at this point is attempt to explain my argument more thoroughly, because I am not entirely sure it's been understood properly, but I will not do that because it's far too complicated to do. Unless someone specifically asks me to do so As to how a hypothetical hyper computer would function, that would be anybody's guess. It clearly cannot function along the lines of any physical laws we are aware of now, as they are all computable (barring chaotic conditions which sometimes introduce undecidability) Also Lag I am not sure the idea that the mind is deterministic is entirely unfounded. Without going into the physical aspects of the brain and concentrating strictly on the functionality, it seems hard to believe intelligence could be the result of random chance. Certainly we do not always understand why we act the way we do, but there are many things we do not understand and most are not random lol. I understand what you are saying. Just on the most basic level if a brains function is deterministic it should able to replicate. If inputs A, B, C, and D = X result that should be able to be modeled in a computer. Maybe not with our current technology but in my current post I pointed out one of a few abstract ideas of computer design. There are also efforts to make biological and quantum computers I have read about. Those do (with the exception of mechanical computers) barely function at all but could be different ways of computing someday. As for Artificial Intelligence one issue I see is that AI does not have to function the same as human intelligence in order to equate to intelligence. In animals many of the same questions have been asked. Are they self aware? Do they recognize themselves? How do groups of insets function with a level of super-organism intelligence? How does an octopus' cogitation work with a distributed structure instead of a centralized mind? Is there intelligence at the cellular level when we can identify patterns attributed to intelligence in things such as mold? All of those things play with the idea of what has and what is intelligence but in a nonhuman-centric way. I would say its an almost certainty that we can create a level of computer intelligence that is like the human mind and the real question is simply 'to what degree' regardless of if the mind is deterministic. But if it is deterministic I feel like without the constraints of things like processing power and memory it should be possible to completely copy the mind with the only difference of the chaos created by quantum level issues. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 29th, 2022 12:55 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I agree. I think the Turing test would be adequate for determining whether an agent is intelligent. The intelligence could be very well alien, but as long as you can recognise there is some kind of understanding behind it - which I think the Turing test would be capable of uncovering - then it does not matter. I think that something that acts intelligently is intelligent; it's not possible to act intelligently and yet be completely dumb. The imitation argument doesn't work; sooner or later someone will you put in a situation you have not been in before and your lack of understanding will be revealed. Mechanical learning cannot replace real understanding. Isn't that what we tell students? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 29th, 2022 01:00 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE You know a question I've asked myself? Children, up until a certain age, are not self-aware. Why not give a Turing test of sorts to children ages 3-10 to see if we can spot a difference between those that are self-aware and those that are not? We could go further than this and give a kind of Turing test to a single child several times over the course of their life, starting say, from when they're 1 year old until they reach like puberty or something. We can actually investigate some of these assumptions behind intelligence, but nobody does it. I looked it up and there is literally ONE study that attempted this experiment and, unfortunately, the paper is hidden behind a 30$ paywall lol, and it has like 10 citations or something similar to that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 29th, 2022 01:03 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE FTR I suspect, but I am not certain, that intelligence automatically brings about consciousness; you cannot be intelligent and yet not self-aware. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 29th, 2022 01:09 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE And thereby we could also investigate whether and which animals are self-aware :) Having realised that ​human babies aren't self-aware, I'm not sure anymore if any animals are self-aware lol. Magpies and elephants have some rituals centered around death which point towards them being self-aware but other than that, we may be alone on this planet. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Auteur : Marshmallow Marshall Date : March 30th, 2022 12:50 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Also Lag I am not sure the idea that the mind is deterministic is entirely unfounded. Without going into the physical aspects of the brain and concentrating strictly on the functionality, it seems hard to believe intelligence could be the result of random chance. Certainly we do not always understand why we act the way we do, but there are many things we do not understand and most are not random lol. This might be a strange question, but is there any possibility other than "the human mind is deterministic" and "the human mind is random"? I feel like that's too reductive, but I don't see any other possibility that logically works, so it's just a feeling... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 30th, 2022 01:00 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE This might be a strange question, but is there any possibility other than "the human mind is deterministic" and "the human mind is random"? I feel like that's too reductive, but I don't see any other possibility that logically works, so it's just a feeling... I don't think so -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Auteur : Marshmallow Marshall Date : March 30th, 2022 01:02 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE The concept of free will is not equal to the concept of randomness of the mind, though: it's not about you RANDOMLY deciding what you do... so there has to be something! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 30th, 2022 01:16 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE The concept of free will is not equal to the concept of randomness of the mind, though: it's not about you RANDOMLY deciding what you do... so there has to be something! I agree, that's why I think we have free will as deterministic creatures -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Auteur : Marshmallow Marshall Date : March 30th, 2022 08:00 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I agree, that's why I think we have free will as deterministic creatures So free will as partially deterministic creatures? Because pure determinism is incompatible with free will. How does that work exactly, though? I guess that was the heart of my question. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 31st, 2022 01:04 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE So free will as partially deterministic creatures? Because pure determinism is incompatible with free will. How does that work exactly, though? I guess that was the heart of my question. Easy, you stop asking yourself the question of whether the particles that blew into existence at the Big Bang caused your thoughts, and realise that you really are ​causing your own thoughts. I mean, I find this whole distinction to be a strange semantic debate to me. And if we're going to take the causality closer to present and say that the neurons in your head caused your thoughts, well that's an easier one. There's no difference between the neurons in your head and you. Saying you don't have free will because the neurons in your head fired a certain way and you have no control over it merely proves we do not have infinite free will, only a limited amount, but that's alright. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Auteur : Oberon Date : March 31st, 2022 01:10 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE As an aside, this whole thing of "event A in the very remote past can be used to determine the outcome of every single event since" is kind of "true" but in the context of the mind it does not really apply. Even if it did cause your mind and ultimately determine your entire history, at the end of the day, this has nothing to do with what you are doing in your day to day life. You aren't looking at a logbook of what happened billions of years ago to figure out your next decision. You are deciding that based on your internal processes. Your internal processes were indeed ultimately shaped by the Big Bang, but within the capability of those processes, now independent from the Big Bang, you have freedom of action. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Auteur : Marshmallow Marshall Date : March 31st, 2022 05:33 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Easy, you stop asking yourself the question of whether the particles that blew into existence at the Big Bang caused your thoughts, and realise that you really are ​causing your own thoughts. I mean, I find this whole distinction to be a strange semantic debate to me. This really just pushes the question further, though: what am I? What is the thing caused my own thoughts? And if we're going to take the causality closer to present and say that the neurons in your head caused your thoughts, well that's an easier one. There's no difference between the neurons in your head and you. Saying you don't have free will because the neurons in your head fired a certain way and you have no control over it merely proves we do not have infinite free will, only a limited amount, but that's alright. How are neurons causing things in my head deterministic? If it's really just neurons causing thoughts, then I don't control this, so I don't have free will, right? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Auteur : Oberon Date : April 1st, 2022 02:30 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE This really just pushes the question further, though: what am I? What is the thing caused my own thoughts? How are neurons causing things in my head deterministic? If it's really just neurons causing thoughts, then I don't control this, so I don't have free will, right? I don't really put that into a lack of free will, more into you being built in such a way that you can only generate a certain subset of the total set of the thoughts. I think of those neurons as being the same as you, there is no difference between the two of you. You cannot change those "neurons" because you cannot change yourself. If you could, that would still be begging the question because now the question is no longer about if your neurons or you are responsible for your actions; after all, there has to be something that guides your behaviour or else it is completely random, and the moment we talk about that "something" we run into the same issue of lack of "free will". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Auteur : OzyWho Date : April 1st, 2022 03:27 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I am discussing whether the mind can be reduced to a Turing machine or not. Nothing to do with determinism Look, a small post! I can read and comment on this! Well, no, our minds can't act as turing machines because we lack the capacity, like we often can't even do math without calculator even though it's a linear process. But like: a) I don't know what you mean by "reduced to"; b) If someone studied physics they'd could tell you what would happen in certain scenarios, if someone studied psychology + a specific person then they could tell you what the person is likely to do in a specific scenario, if someone studied economy then they could tell you what happens in specific scenarios; c) If you're thinking about why people come to different conclusions - we aren't that simple beings, we each have different perspectives and different biases. But in a scenario where you "reduced" us to a turing machines where we each had infinite knowledge and infinite processing power, then yeah - we would each come to same conclusion from the same information, but we would all sort of be the same anyways with only position and circumstances different. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Auteur : OzyWho Date : April 1st, 2022 03:48 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE By the way, this thread taught me that I struggle with abstract thinking. It's so alien to my brain, you guys may as well talk Korean as far as my brain is concerned :laugh: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Auteur : Helz Date : April 3rd, 2022 07:32 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE FTR I suspect, but I am not certain, that intelligence automatically brings about consciousness; you cannot be intelligent and yet not self-aware. I would disagree with this. We question if all sorts of life on earth is self aware but all life has some form of intelligence. The fact a squirrel does not create math or philosophy does not mean it does not have intelligence. Reptiles have a very primal brain structure but they act in their interests and have some levels of problem solving. Insects and Birds have both been known to even use tools. I have questioned the intelligent growth patterns of trees. There was this one that was behind 2 large structures connected by some stairs. The sun would shine between those structures and the tree grew a long branch to gather that light. But the thing was that to get there it had to grow through a large area where it did not get any extra light. I remember looking at that tree and asking myself how it knew the light was there to begin with. How I could explain that odd growth pattern without accepting that in some way on some level that tree knew throwing resources away to grow through the dark area would be worth it to get to the light. There is many other plant stuff that I would say points to a form of intelligence existing that is so alien to our own we hardly recognize it but its very unlikely that a plant is self aware. Anyways, I do not feel like self awareness is a pre-requisite for intelligence. It really just points to declaring our particular brand of intelligence as the standard for intelligence which is a very human-centric way to look at it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Auteur : Oberon Date : April 4th, 2022 04:41 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I would disagree with this. We question if all sorts of life on earth is self aware but all life has some form of intelligence. The fact a squirrel does not create math or philosophy does not mean it does not have intelligence. Reptiles have a very primal brain structure but they act in their interests and have some levels of problem solving. Insects and Birds have both been known to even use tools. I have questioned the intelligent growth patterns of trees. There was this one that was behind 2 large structures connected by some stairs. The sun would shine between those structures and the tree grew a long branch to gather that light. But the thing was that to get there it had to grow through a large area where it did not get any extra light. I remember looking at that tree and asking myself how it knew the light was there to begin with. How I could explain that odd growth pattern without accepting that in some way on some level that tree knew throwing resources away to grow through the dark area would be worth it to get to the light. There is many other plant stuff that I would say points to a form of intelligence existing that is so alien to our own we hardly recognize it but its very unlikely that a plant is self aware. Anyways, I do not feel like self awareness is a pre-requisite for intelligence. It really just points to declaring our particular brand of intelligence as the standard for intelligence which is a very human-centric way to look at it. This is true only if intelligence is mechanical. Otherwise, that is not intelligence. I feel like it's more the opposite, you cannot be self aware without being intelligent. I admit I have no hard proofs or evidence for this either way but it feels "right" that that would be the case. For instance babies are arguably neither intelligent nor self aware. I can also envision a world in which human consciousness is non-physical, in which case, even if it is possible for a physical system to be intelligent, they are not self aware (and thus do nkt really exist, even though they are capable of reaching non-mechanical Truths, Truths that seem more real than reality itself). I find it very difficult to imagine that something that can be creative like you and me can simply not be, so I kind of have a problem with this idea. In my opinion, either intelligence and consciousness are both physically realizable but not Turing reducible, or they are both non-physical. This is also why I think dualism and monism are a false dichotomy, i.e. dualists and other non-computationalists have more in common with one another than either does with computationalists, even though the latter two (can) both be monist physicalists. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Auteur : Oberon Date : April 5th, 2022 07:13 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Look, a small post! I can read and comment on this! Well, no, our minds can't act as turing machines because we lack the capacity, like we often can't even do math without calculator even though it's a linear process. But like: a) I don't know what you mean by "reduced to"; b) If someone studied physics they'd could tell you what would happen in certain scenarios, if someone studied psychology + a specific person then they could tell you what the person is likely to do in a specific scenario, if someone studied economy then they could tell you what happens in specific scenarios; c) If you're thinking about why people come to different conclusions - we aren't that simple beings, we each have different perspectives and different biases. But in a scenario where you "reduced" us to a turing machines where we each had infinite knowledge and infinite processing power, then yeah - we would each come to same conclusion from the same information, but we would all sort of be the same anyways with only position and circumstances different. Minds can act as Turing machines. Given the description of a Turing machine, one can simulate its operation with pen and paper, provided an unlimited amount of paper. Turing based his universal computer on human computers when he came up with the idea. Here I used the term "computer" in the old meaning of the word, which referred to a human who had to perform calculations with pen and paper (like logarithm tables and shit like that). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Auteur : Oberon Date : April 5th, 2022 07:52 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE a) I don't know what you mean by "reduced to"; If the brain can be simulated by a Turing machine -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Auteur : Oberon Date : April 7th, 2022 10:23 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE No arguments exist in favour of the brain being computational in nature, other than that it may be. Whenever I tried to envision an algorithm according to which the brain could function, I could never come up with one but told myself there had to be one. This is all well and good, however when looking at the arguments against, plenty come to mind. Therefore the mind must be non-computational. This seems to be a nearly certain fact. I challenge someone to come up with argument as to why the brain has to be algorithmic -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Auteur : theoneceko Date : April 7th, 2022 10:45 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE wdu think of AI art, will it ever be better than the best human art -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Auteur : Oberon Date : April 9th, 2022 01:38 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE no -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Auteur : theoneceko Date : April 9th, 2022 04:10 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE does the best AI art have more artistic value than the worst human art i say “no” cuz AI art does not have a “soul,” although u can explain what im getting at more clearly i said all that i needed to and am probably talking about something u dont want to discuss, so i will stop to satisfy both of us // im quite the evil person *COUGHS -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Auteur : SuperJack Date : April 11th, 2022 08:37 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Oh no mate I have no idea, I know jack shit about psychology and neuroscience. It just seems to me, from reading your post, that your point is "I don't understand why I think the thinks that I do" and your conclusion is "the mind is not a machine" when it should be "I should learn psychology to learn more about the thinks". Someone studies my waste -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Auteur : Oberon Date : April 25th, 2022 02:24 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE And yes I agree that thinking is deterministic. I am aware there is little hard evidence out there but I am pretty convinced of this as, the more intelligent people are, you'd expect them to be more random, which is a bit strange. I mean how could something that gets more random be better? Shouldn't it get... worse, approaching a 50/50 split? Just wanted to add that randomness does not require a 50/50 split. True randomness can come from any distribution - including none - and it is impossible to predict in advance what the sequence will look like. In fact, a distribution implies some kind of determinism. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : April 29th, 2022 08:06 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE This discussion is complete intellectual masturbation on all sides and the point is entirely inarguable. The entire thing boils down to a decision tree with two branches 1) Do you think the contents of the universe follow a deterministic set of laws that can be computed and/or mathematically modeled? If no then so-called algorithmic machines do not exist and the whole argument is moot. If yes, then: 2) Do you believe the human brain is subject to the same rules as all other matter in the universe? If so, then the brain is necessarily a machine per this weird definition of "machine". 3) If no, then you believe in some extra-physical process that comprise human thought, i.e. a soul. This entire thread, IMO, is the same as asking "Do you believe in a soul?" which is a very uninteresting conversation. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 66] Auteur : OzyWho Date : April 29th, 2022 05:05 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE This discussion is complete intellectual masturbation on all sides and the point is entirely inarguable. The entire thing boils down to a decision tree with two branches 1) Do you think the contents of the universe follow a deterministic set of laws that can be computed and/or mathematically modeled? If no then so-called algorithmic machines do not exist and the whole argument is moot. If yes, then: 2) Do you believe the human brain is subject to the same rules as all other matter in the universe? If so, then the brain is necessarily a machine per this weird definition of "machine". 3) If no, then you believe in some extra-physical process that comprise human thought, i.e. a soul. Honestly, am I the only one who can't understand this thread? :push: This entire thread, IMO, is the same as asking "Do you believe in a soul?" which is a very uninteresting conversation. I don't but I refer to it on a regular basis ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 67] Auteur : Helz Date : May 1st, 2022 02:04 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE It is not a bad breakdown of our conversation and is very concise. Oberon seems to have argued a difference between determinism in thought with some connection to computational thought that I don't understand but outside of that its a good summary imo. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 68] Auteur : Oberon Date : May 1st, 2022 10:02 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE This discussion is complete intellectual masturbation on all sides and the point is entirely inarguable. The entire thing boils down to a decision tree with two branches 1) Do you think the contents of the universe follow a deterministic set of laws that can be computed and/or mathematically modeled? If no then so-called algorithmic machines do not exist and the whole argument is moot. If yes, then: 2) Do you believe the human brain is subject to the same rules as all other matter in the universe? If so, then the brain is necessarily a machine per this weird definition of "machine". 3) If no, then you believe in some extra-physical process that comprise human thought, i.e. a soul. This entire thread, IMO, is the same as asking "Do you believe in a soul?" which is a very uninteresting conversation. 3) Does not follow. Assuming the mind can be reduced to the brain, a physical mind that can "compute" non-Turing computable "functions" has to be based on physical laws that are not computable. I do not see where the belief in a soul comes into play -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 69] Auteur : Oberon Date : May 1st, 2022 10:07 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE This has nothing to do with belief in a soul. If there are physical laws that are deterministic, but which cannot be computed by a given Turing machine (or an algorithm, since they are equivalent), and these laws can be harnessed to perform computations, then it must follow that it is physically possible for computers more computationally capable than the ones we have now to exist. It certainly seems to me that the mind is such a computer; I do not see where the idealism/dualism comes into play. Certainly one solution to the problem of a mind that is a hyper-Turing machine involves a mind that is not reducible to the brain, but it isn't necessary. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 70] Auteur : Oberon Date : May 1st, 2022 10:49 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE It is not a bad breakdown of our conversation and is very concise. Oberon seems to have argued a difference between determinism in thought with some connection to computational thought that I don't understand but outside of that its a good summary imo. Its little to do with determinism. It's about whether or not human minds have capabilities that computers do not possess. To put it plainly, given an infinite amount of time, I believe there are answers that people would be able to reach that computers would not. Are there still answers that neither can reach? I believe the answer is yes but I am not certain. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 71] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : May 5th, 2022 03:51 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE This has nothing to do with belief in a soul. If there are physical laws that are deterministic, but which cannot be computed by a given Turing machine (or an algorithm, since they are equivalent), and these laws can be harnessed to perform computations, then it must follow that it is physically possible for computers more computationally capable than the ones we have now to exist. It certainly seems to me that the mind is such a computer; I do not see where the idealism/dualism comes into play. Certainly one solution to the problem of a mind that is a hyper-Turing machine involves a mind that is not reducible to the brain, but it isn't necessary. So you think there are physical laws which apply to the brain which cannot be described mathematically? That sounds like a soul with more steps to me. There is no shame in believing in a soul, most of the world does so. Unless your point is that computers aren't yet powerful enough to simulate the brain, which is an even less interesting point. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 72] Auteur : Oberon Date : May 5th, 2022 06:06 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE So you think there are physical laws which apply to the brain which cannot be described mathematically? That sounds like a soul with more steps to me. There is no shame in believing in a soul, most of the world does so. Unless your point is that computers aren't yet powerful enough to simulate the brain, which is an even less interesting point. Lets say hypothetically that the solution to the 3-body problem is such a function, i.e. a function that cannot be described mathematically. Would you say the 3-body problem has a soul? I'm speaking out of my ass on this next one because I don't really know, but you could also add the Navier-Stokes equations to this list because AFAIK they also cannot be solved analytically -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 73] Auteur : Marshmallow Marshall Date : May 5th, 2022 04:49 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE So you think there are physical laws which apply to the brain which cannot be described mathematically? That sounds like a soul with more steps to me. There is no shame in believing in a soul, most of the world does so. Unless your point is that computers aren't yet powerful enough to simulate the brain, which is an even less interesting point. Technically, a soul would have to be on a non-material plane. Not mathematically describable =/= not material (well, I guess that's debatable, but it at least isn't necessarily so). And since I would be talking about something I know basically nothing about, I will not get into "what can maths explain", sorry, not sorry :P. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 74] Auteur : oops_ur_dead Date : May 9th, 2022 04:59 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Lets say hypothetically that the solution to the 3-body problem is such a function, i.e. a function that cannot be described mathematically. Would you say the 3-body problem has a soul? I'm speaking out of my ass on this next one because I don't really know, but you could also add the Navier-Stokes equations to this list because AFAIK they also cannot be solved analytically Both the examples you've listed are approximations of physical processes and thus aren't really related to the topic at hand. The question you're posing doesn't relate to the brain, it relates to all of physics. Namely you're trying to ask if it's possible that every physical process can be completely and accurately described by math. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 75] Auteur : Oberon Date : May 9th, 2022 11:13 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE Both the examples you've listed are approximations of physical processes and thus aren't really related to the topic at hand. The question you're posing doesn't relate to the brain, it relates to all of physics. Namely you're trying to ask if it's possible that every physical process can be completely and accurately described by math. But it does. I just gave you an example of a physical process that may not be computable, one that does not have a soul. It seems to me a soul should be something apart from physics; like the place in which a soul could exist would have its own laws. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 76] Auteur : yzb25 Date : May 9th, 2022 02:40 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I've seen reference to the notions of "intelligence", "self-awareness" and "understanding" like they have concrete definitions. Is there a well defined definition I am ignorant of? To clarify about the distinction between "computable" and deterministic - there are classes of problems such that there is no algorithm that can solve every problem in the class, but each problem in the class has a yes or no answer. The most famous example of this is probably the halting problem. It asks if there is an algorithm which, when given an arbitrary computer program, will figure out whether the program terminates or runs indefinitely. Now, apparently, there are classes of problems in Quantum Mechanics which are undecidable. I do not know much Quantum Mechanics, but I at least know what "decidability" means. That's saying there are classes of problems in Quantum Mechanics for which there is literally no algorithm which can solve them. In fact, there will always be specific instances of the problem which resist a solution, regardless of your particular axiomatization of mathematics (all sensible modern mathematics is always done by making logical deductions from a consistent set of axioms. That's how we can come to absolute conclusions about truth and falsehood). This is very different from simply saying "there are systems / models we use in Quantum Mechanics which involve probability and randomness". This is actually a far more damning issue than having a system that involves randomness. If an omnipotent being throws a "perfect die" which is "truly random", we cannot know for sure what number will come up. But I can perfectly model and understand its mathematical structure. It simply has a 1 in 6 probability of showing any particular side. For our purposes, this may be "random", but it is at least "decidable". Undecidability would be more like if the mathematics involved in modelling what side comes up were so fucked up that I literally couldn't even calculate the probability. And the mathematics is so fucked up I can give a separate mathematical proof demonstrating that I literally cannot mathematically compute it. p;edit this blog post gives an example of a class of problems in QM which are apparently undecidable. I can't vouch for its authenticity but.. erm... they seem like they know what they're talking about https://www.i-programmer.info/news/112-theory/9253-quantum-physics-is-undecidable.html -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 77] Auteur : yzb25 Date : May 9th, 2022 02:41 PM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I didn't wish to take a position, I just wanted to clarify that because it's really fascinating and I've seen a lot of confusion about decidability in the thread lmao -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 78] Auteur : Oberon Date : May 10th, 2022 06:41 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE I've seen reference to the notions of "intelligence", "self-awareness" and "understanding" like they have concrete definitions. Is there a well defined definition I am ignorant of? To clarify about the distinction between "computable" and deterministic - there are classes of problems such that there is no algorithm that can solve every problem in the class, but each problem in the class has a yes or no answer. The most famous example of this is probably the halting problem. It asks if there is an algorithm which, when given an arbitrary computer program, will figure out whether the program terminates or runs indefinitely. Now, apparently, there are classes of problems in Quantum Mechanics which are undecidable. I do not know much Quantum Mechanics, but I at least know what "decidability" means. That's saying there are classes of problems in Quantum Mechanics for which there is literally no algorithm which can solve them. In fact, there will always be specific instances of the problem which resist a solution, regardless of your particular axiomatization of mathematics (all sensible modern mathematics is always done by making logical deductions from a consistent set of axioms. That's how we can come to absolute conclusions about truth and falsehood). This is very different from simply saying "there are systems / models we use in Quantum Mechanics which involve probability and randomness". This is actually a far more damning issue than having a system that involves randomness. If an omnipotent being throws a "perfect die" which is "truly random", we cannot know for sure what number will come up. But I can perfectly model and understand its mathematical structure. It simply has a 1 in 6 probability of showing any particular side. For our purposes, this may be "random", but it is at least "decidable". Undecidability would be more like if the mathematics involved in modelling what side comes up were so fucked up that I literally couldn't even calculate the probability. And the mathematics is so fucked up I can give a separate mathematical proof demonstrating that I literally cannot mathematically compute it. p;edit this blog post gives an example of a class of problems in QM which are apparently undecidable. I can't vouch for its authenticity but.. erm... they seem like they know what they're talking about https://www.i-programmer.info/news/112-theory/9253-quantum-physics-is-undecidable.html Just to add to your point, it appears the n-body problem may be Turing complete. One could use the n-body problem to make arbitrary computations -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 79] Auteur : Oberon Date : May 10th, 2022 11:20 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE "Understanding" is a word that is hard to define. I'll put it this way: when you feel like you've finally understood something, you possess understanding (some of the time, at least). This is not the same as merely knowing that something. It is not merely a feeling, but the feeling is there when you have understanding. It follows from this "definition" that computers/algorithms/whatever do not possess understanding. They do not understand things like we do; they merely use grammatical rules and a set of axioms to derive new propositions from a set of initial statements. If you want to test this assumption yourself, picture yourself being given a list of instructions to follow. Now picture that these instructions, if performed, do something, but you cannot understand what it is that they're doing. You most clearly do not possess any understanding in this scenario. This is exactly how computers work -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 80] Auteur : Oberon Date : May 11th, 2022 05:45 AM Title : Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0096300305008490 Here's an article on the topic if you're curious -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-