A philosophical model for the Brain based on Turing machines

[Lucas Bet]

Hello,

I am introducing a work of philosophy in which we propose (and I realize, these might sound absurd claims at first):

• Susanne Langer and Immanuel Kant philosophies can be linked together, to give us a complete philosophical model for the Human Brain.
• By applying this model to Darwin’s evolution, we are able to logically prove the Brain has to based on the model we know as Turing machines;
• By considering how the Brain perceives our reality, and by applying the Turing machine model to empirical physical evidence, we are able to demonstrate the Brain is a solution to link together general relativity and quantum mechanics;
• And, after all, the Turing machine model also explains what philosophers have been talking about the nature and origin of Human consciousness;
• and understanding the Brain might be our best chance at arriving at a Peaceful society.

This is a whole book, and I am the author. However this isn’t about promotion really. These are questions pertinent to all Humans, about our evolution, consumption, psychedelics, identity, consciousness and more. It is free of course.

And the best is, in the book, you don’t have to trust me, ever.
And I won’t ask for it.

I display the argument from the very beginning, as a careful investigation, so you can see if and when I’m wrong, a process that makes the book readable by non-scientists, including helpful illustrations (although they are bad, but should improve in the future).

Of course, doubt me.

But take yourself seriously!

TO READ, this is the direct link for the pdf:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/dzlkwzc4ujisy3op23wv5/The-Rabbit-Whole-Lucas-Bet-2024.pdf?rlkey=gtuwr602ogc2f8jlix7nmpnuk&dl=0

Or also from: www.rabbitwhole.com.br (it’s in english).

Thank you for reading, and I am eager for debates and comments!

Edited February 13 by Lucas Bet
Wrong editing before.

[dimreepr]

So which came first, the philosophical model or the machine that proves it?

[Lucas Bet]

Quote

So which came first, the philosophical model or the machine that proves it?

Both are the same, however, the philosophical model has been developed using philosophical language, where Turing developed the model thinking with mathematical language. And physicists developed their model using yet another language system.

Then, it doesn't matter which "model" came first (which is simply a question about which language came first).

There can be only one universal truth, by definition.

Then what we call "different models" are simply different translations of the same knowledge. Which is why we must arrive at the same proof from different angles:

• Mathematically: by using Darwin and Turing.
• Philosophically: by using Langer and Kant.
• Physically: by using Benioff´s quantum computing model.

And if this is a true perspective, then it really amounts to a theory of everything. Which is a terrible name. Because Godell's works in mathematics show us there is probably no ending point for knowledge (there is always a chance we discover another unprovable axiom).

But it is (indeed) a theory that pretends to explains the mechanism behind the existence of every object in the Universe.

Edited February 13 by Lucas Bet
Flow

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

There can be only one universal truth, by definition.

Why?

Who told you?

 

[dimreepr]

On 2/13/2024 at 4:17 PM, Lucas Bet said:

Both are the same, however, the philosophical model has been developed using philosophical language, where Turing developed the model thinking with mathematical language. And physicists developed their model using yet another language system.

Nope, nope and nope:

Firstly, philosophical languange is what we all speak, even the physicists and 'some' of the mathematicians.

Secondly, a physicists language is mathematics.

And thirdly, what other language system... Alien???