WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE - Page 2
Register

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 80 of 80
  1. ISO #51

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.

  2. ISO #52

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    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".
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  3. ISO #53

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    from time to time, I act very much like a normal person.
    My spirit animal: https://youtu.be/fNugZU61EXI

  4. ISO #54

  5. ISO #55

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    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.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.

  6. ISO #56

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  7. ISO #57

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  8. ISO #58

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    a) I don't know what you mean by "reduced to";
    If the brain can be simulated by a Turing machine
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  9. ISO #59

    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  10. ISO #60

  11. ISO #61

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    no
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  12. ISO #62

    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

  13. ISO #63

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    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
    Cryptonic made this sig

    Quote Originally Posted by HentaiManOfPeace View Post
    gotchu fam

    Attachment 28016

  14. ISO #64

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Oberon; April 25th, 2022 at 02:25 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  15. ISO #65

    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.
    Last edited by oops_ur_dead; April 29th, 2022 at 08:06 AM.

  16. ISO #66

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    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)_/¯
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    from time to time, I act very much like a normal person.
    My spirit animal: https://youtu.be/fNugZU61EXI

  17. ISO #67

    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.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.

  18. ISO #68

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  19. ISO #69

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  20. ISO #70

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  21. ISO #71

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    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.
    Last edited by oops_ur_dead; May 5th, 2022 at 03:51 AM.

  22. ISO #72

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    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
    Last edited by Oberon; May 5th, 2022 at 06:07 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  23. ISO #73

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.

  24. ISO #74

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    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.

  25. ISO #75

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  26. ISO #76

    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/1...decidable.html
    Last edited by yzb25; May 9th, 2022 at 02:52 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  27. ISO #77

    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  28. ISO #78

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  29. ISO #79

    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

  30. ISO #80

    Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...96300305008490
    Here's an article on the topic if you're curious
    Quote Originally Posted by Huey The Long View Post
    Naz will die, i can promise you this, i visited there home, i shared the wealth, placed my book on their nightstand and said every man a king 3 times so they will die from my glorious contagion of my political program
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    You sure you dont want to lynch Voss again? he may flip scum this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Distorted View Post
    mags my highest townread and i think hes scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoatseOntheCupboard View Post
    NOT TOWN = NOT INNOCENT

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •