Genady

Yes, human because it is more interesting and understandable to us. OTOH, the goal is not necessarily pragmatic. It can be for sport or for research, for example. I don't think they developed artificial GO champion because it was needed.

So, brains do many things that computers don't do, and computers do many things that brains don't do. Maybe the question should be narrowed to a domain where their functions seemingly overlap, namely, intelligence: Is human intelligence a biologically implemented computer?

I think today "computation" applies to "whatever computers can do". This is certainly what they mean in the book I've cited in the OP.

I didn't feel a need to mention Turing machines because any computation can be implemented by a TM. TM is a formally defined device useful for formal analyzing computations, e.g. compare their complexities. A computational machine doesn't have to be a TM, but whatever it does can be done by a TM. This includes AI neural nets of all types. Since they are implemented by computers, they can be implemented by a TM.

To add to this question: Does 'computation' include determining what to measure?

DNN can approximate any function in a model, but the model is given to it. What I mean by coming up with a new model, in the astrology example for instance, is: would DNN come up with considering, instead of astrological data, parameters like education of a person, social background, family psychological profile, how much they travel, what do they do, how big is their town, is it rural or industrial, conservative or liberal, etc. etc. ?

Materialistic/naturalistic perspective leads me to consider a brain to be some kind of machine. But, why computational? What do they mean when they say computational?

For most galaxies, yes, it is so. For the very close galaxies, e.g. Andromeda, no. The redshift didn't change in the last 100 years.

I've read today in a recent book on Artificial intelligence this statement: "a brain is a computational machine that happens to be made of neurons." (Stone, James. Artificial Intelligence Engines: A Tutorial Introduction to the Mathematics of Deep Learning (p. 183), 2020.) Is brain a "computational machine"? If so, in what sense?

x+y+z=10. You can express z by x and y. Then, you can substitute this expression for z in the given function, and it becomes a function of two variables. You can apply the theorem 2.6 as is to this function.

I don't know what "labeling data" is and how it relates to coming up with a new model. But will it come up with a new model?

You know that "Moskva" is "Moscow" in Russian, right?

Regarding the universal approximation theorem, here is an example of a model: astrology. What will DNN do if the training data is astrological data of people as input and their life affairs as output? It can approximate any function in this model. But any function will be garbage anyway.

Perhaps. But can we test if a computer has or doesn't have an idea of infinity?

As I understand it, DNN can approximate any function in a given model, i.e. given input and output spaces. What are these spaces, is up to human.

I try to narrow the original passage to one item: AI can't come up with new models, it can only optimize models created by humans.

You're right guys. I've made a mistake.

Right. Its response would be correct let's say in 85% of cases. "Correct" meaning similar to how some humans would respond. Yes, humans do it differently, but this is not what AI is about. It is only about the outcome. (disclaimer: I'm playing a devil's advocate here)

I'm curious about a physics of this. Does mind create a field outside your body such that this field has all the detailed information about the mind's state?

I guess, to resolve this a system developer first would feed the computer with 10 million examples of such statements and various human responses to them, and the computer will develop a pattern of how to response and will apply it next time it stumbles upon something like that.

Like most religions and ideologies, Marxism evolved and branched. I learned the official version of the КПСС, Communist Party of Soviet Union, founded by Lenin. According to this, Marxism consists of three parts: philosophy (not a political philosophy, but rather dialectic materialism), economic theory, and social theory. After the revolution of 1917, the economic theory became purely academic, the philosophy became a demagogic lingo, and an active essence of Marxism concentrated in the social theory. Its main point was, building a happy communist society. Is this a religion?

One might be out, one or more could be in. "Finland will take a decision about whether to apply to join the U.S.-led NATO alliance in the next few weeks, Prime Minister Sanna Marin said on Wednesday, underlining a shift in security perspectives since Russia's invasion of Ukraine." Finland to make decision on NATO entry in coming weeks, not months | Reuters

This is so, if my understanding of what constitutes a religion is thrown away. What is a defining feature then? How do I know what is and what is not a religion? Can we apply that test to Marxism (because I know about it more than I ever wanted)?

Thanks a lot. Downloaded. I'll study it. Maybe interpolate-extrapolate expresses what I mean by external-internal patterns -- we'll see.