WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

[Marshmallow Marshall]

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?

[Oberon]

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".

[OzyWho]

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.

[OzyWho]

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

[Helz]

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.

[Oberon]

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.

[Oberon]

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).

[Oberon]

a) I don't know what you mean by "reduced to";

If the brain can be simulated by a Turing machine

[Oberon]

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

[theoneceko]

wdu think of AI art, will it ever be better than the best human art

[Oberon]

no

[theoneceko]

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

[SuperJack]

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

[Oberon]

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.

[oops_ur_dead]

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.

[OzyWho]

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?

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)_/¯

[Helz]

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.

[Oberon]

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

[Oberon]

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.

[Oberon]

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.

[oops_ur_dead]

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.

[Oberon]

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

[Marshmallow Marshall]

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.

[oops_ur_dead]

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.

[Oberon]

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.

[yzb25]

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/1...decidable.html

[yzb25]

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

[Oberon]

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/1...decidable.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

[Oberon]

"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

[Oberon]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...96300305008490
Here's an article on the topic if you're curious