Brain vs. Computer

[pears]

 

To me the main thing is that reality is testable and repeatable, metaphysical things cannot be verified in the real world if they are truly metaphysical...

 

 

But testability and repeatability only have meaning once you have denied solipsism, otherwise you are putting the cart before the horse.

 

I would challenge that, a better explanation is something that works, metaphysics contributes no workable knowledge...

 

Yes but if it works.. it works... metaphysics makes no verifiable claims, only horse feathers... Sophism leads us nowhere...

 

 

But what does "it works" mean? You mean "it works" in the objective reality you have assumed exists by denying solipsism?

[Moontanman]

But testability and repeatability only have meaning once you have denied solipsism, otherwise you are putting the cart before the horse.

 

 

But what does "it works" mean? You mean "it works" in the objective reality you have assumed exists by denying solipsism?

"it works" means you can affect the physical world with it, our entire first world civilization is built on "it works" metaphysics does nothing but muddy the water..

 

Yes, I assume reality is real, I am an Empirical Rationalist, if it cannot be shown to have an effect on reality then it doesn't exist...

Edited October 19, 2013 by Moontanman

[pears]

Yes, I assume reality is real,

 

Me too

[EdEarl]

Yes, I assume reality is real,

 

 

Me too

 

And me.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Qualia cannot be separate to brain states, not for the purpose of reverse engineering the brain. We have to assume that knowledge exists physically in the brain, we also have to assume that it is recognizable. Knowledge may move throughout the brain, but the system that recognizes the knowledge is much more stationary. I guess that qualia could be different at different moments, but the term itself is much too broad when we're trying to measure/discuss something that is necessarily precise. My point is that we need to identify something specific rather than tarry on real indefinite terminology.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79425-specific-method-of-measuring-mind-activity/

[WWLabRat]

And me.

And I

 

Qualia cannot be separate to brain states, not for the purpose of reverse engineering the brain. We have to assume that knowledge exists physically in the brain, we also have to assume that it is recognizable. Knowledge may move throughout the brain, but the system that recognizes the knowledge is much more stationary. I guess that qualia could be different at different moments, but the term itself is much too broad when we're trying to measure/discuss something that is necessarily precise. My point is that we need to identify something specific rather than tarry on real indefinite terminology.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79425-specific-method-of-measuring-mind-activity/

 

The problem though is that this whole thread is making comparisons between four separate things: computer binary functions, electrical/chemical processes in the brain, metaphysics of computers, and the soul. Only two of these are even physical in nature and are able to be measured by modern technology. The other two are non physical and untestable.

 

How can the brain not be reverse engineered by studying the various states that it can be in? Sufficient mapping of brain processes would, in theory, allow one to make an acceptable "blueprint" of the organization and depth of process that each lobe is responsible for. You read every day that more depth is added to what we know of the various parts of the brain. The more we know, the easier it is to replicate. It used to be impossible to replicate a limb, but we now have robotic arms/legs, artificial hearts, etc. It's not unrealistic to believe that it would be feasible to make an adequate facsimile of the human brain that would be able to hold the memories, thoughts, and personality of a person. Only by bridging the gap between natural and artificial would we be able to weed out if the soul exists and from there whether it is an emergent property of the person or the body.

[Villain]

 

 

What is a metaphysical truth? Is it anything like "reveled truth" ? What standards do you apply to verify a meta physical truth, baseless assertions?

 

 

If by 'reveled' you mean a religious revealed truth then no they are not the same. Metaphysical truth as I used it, means the true metaphysical position, which is unknown. We don't have access to metaphysical truth, so it can't be verified, but there are numerous suggestions at what can be the case.

 

To claim claim something as real with out demonstrable evidence is dishonest no matter how much mumbo jumbo you cloak it in...

 

 

 

The part you quoted was in reference to the scientific method and logical deduction of what is possible through it, I don't understand why you mention demonstrable evidence or what you find as 'mumbo jumbo'.

 

We might arise from the Sugar Plum Fairy but to assert it with no empirical evidence is just baseless speculation...

 

 

 

This makes no sense, I'm sorry that you are not following but I don't know how to simplify it any further.

[Popcorn Sutton]

You say that the other two are untestable, which is false. I assume that you're talking about the soul and the metaphysics of computers. The idea that the metaphysics of computers is untestable is false in my opinion. Now that there is a consensus that the free will is an illusion (and as reverse engineers of the brain it would be contradictory to assume that there is a free will), we can go about testing theories that involve brain activities computationally. As Chomsky says, not much is learned in this pursuit, maybe around the margins, but a lot of evidence is utilized (evidence concerning physics, biology, atomic and molecular science, chemistry, and other topics of the sort). I know personally that you can describe these processes (such as quantum entanglement) and make the computer carry out operations that sufficiently replicate this type of occurrence. It turns out that you can see just by looking at efficiency (whether the computer is able to process the instructions in a desirable time frame) whether you are on the right track, because we have to assume that nature is "perfectly efficient", and given this assumption, a computer should be able to carry out tasks within a desirable timeframe if they are true to natures efficiency. It turns out that you can have a MASSIVE memory, computationally, and it appears that regardless of the length of the list, by analyzing separate strings, you can efficiently access the list within the blink of an eye (even if the list has a length greater than 2846946483 units [of knowledge]). So, therefor, I have to assume that the metaphysics of computer science is an empirical endeavour. Not only is it empirical, it is necessarily deterministic; there is absolutely no possibility of making the system "random" or "chaotic" or "free" because these are notions that are non-existent in nature. They are unobservable. The universe is ordered (which I, as a computational linguist, would call "grammatical"). I will not comment on the soul any further than to say that the universe is expanding and one should consider the implications proposed by Krauss's argument, something from nothing. Our body has clear cut parameters, there are very distinct constraints that guide the flow of energy, and information, to be necessarily sufficient with respect to the body of the cell; the membrane that defines the parameters of our body. The soul, in my opinion, is also a real indefinite term, and for my purposes at least, I can go about theorizing and testing the metaphysics without paying even a moment of attention to the probability of having a soul. In my opinion, I define the mind (which one may call a soul) as a finite recursive process only operating to the extent that the system containing the process is not malfective. In other words, while mind == 0: perform theorized operation.

 

In this sense, we can safely ignore the soul as long as our experiments sufficiently replicate observed behavior.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[Moontanman]

 

If by 'reveled' you mean a religious revealed truth then no they are not the same. Metaphysical truth as I used it, means the true metaphysical position, which is unknown. We don't have access to metaphysical truth, so it can't be verified, but there are numerous suggestions at what can be the case.

 

The part you quoted was in reference to the scientific method and logical deduction of what is possible through it, I don't understand why you mention demonstrable evidence or what you find as 'mumbo jumbo'.

 

This makes no sense, I'm sorry that you are not following but I don't know how to simplify it any further.

 

 

I would suggest this, anything you can assert with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence, I see no evidence of the meta physical, so anything that is not a logical contradiction can be asserted as meta physics?

 

I am an empirical rationalist, if it can not be shown to affect reality in a testable way it is not knowledge... Exactly what meta physical effects do we use to create technology? What good does meta physics do us? Does meta physics feed the world? Cure disease? Take us across continents? Land on the Moon? I would really like to see some evidence of the meta physical that wasn't just someone asserting something that is totally baseless...

 

Debating the equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin seems a bit useless to me...

[Villain]

 

 

I would suggest this, anything you can assert with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence, I see no evidence of the meta physical, so anything that is not a logical contradiction can be asserted as meta physics?

 

I am an empirical rationalist, if it can not be shown to affect reality in a testable way it is not knowledge... Exactly what meta physical effects do we use to create technology? What good does meta physics do us? Does meta physics feed the world? Cure disease? Take us across continents? Land on the Moon? I would really like to see some evidence of the meta physical that wasn't just someone asserting something that is totally baseless...

 

Debating the equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin seems a bit useless to me...

 

People are free to dismiss things regardless of evidence or not, btw what is an empirical rationalist, I'm guessing you're more empirical than rationalist from the above?

[Moontanman]

 

People are free to dismiss things regardless of evidence or not, btw what is an empirical rationalist, I'm guessing you're more empirical than rationalist from the above?

 

 

"Empirical Rationalist" I adhere to the idea that only what can be tested and shown to have a physical effect in the world is real... Everything else is just posturing... "my ideas are better than his ideas" meaningless with no positive evidence...

[Villain]

 

 

"Empirical Rationalist" I adhere to the idea that only what can be tested and shown to have a physical effect in the world is real... Everything else is just posturing... "my ideas are better than his ideas" meaningless with no positive evidence...

 

Ok, I think you mean Empiricist

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

[Moontanman]

 

Ok, I think you mean Empiricist

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

 

 

No, I am quite aware of what i am saying...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

 

Rationalism is often contrasted with empiricism. Taken very broadly these views are not mutually exclusive, since a philosopher can be both rationalist and empiricist.^[2]

 

Edited October 20, 2013 by Moontanman

[WWLabRat]

You say that the other two are untestable, which is false. I assume that you're talking about the soul and the metaphysics of computers. The idea that the metaphysics of computers is untestable is false in my opinion. Now that there is a consensus that the free will is an illusion (and as reverse engineers of the brain it would be contradictory to assume that there is a free will), we can go about testing theories that involve brain activities computationally. As Chomsky says, not much is learned in this pursuit, maybe around the margins, but a lot of evidence is utilized (evidence concerning physics, biology, atomic and molecular science, chemistry, and other topics of the sort). I know personally that you can describe these processes (such as quantum entanglement) and make the computer carry out operations that sufficiently replicate this type of occurrence. It turns out that you can see just by looking at efficiency (whether the computer is able to process the instructions in a desirable time frame) whether you are on the right track, because we have to assume that nature is "perfectly efficient", and given this assumption, a computer should be able to carry out tasks within a desirable timeframe if they are true to natures efficiency. It turns out that you can have a MASSIVE memory, computationally, and it appears that regardless of the length of the list, by analyzing separate strings, you can efficiently access the list within the blink of an eye (even if the list has a length greater than 2846946483 units [of knowledge]). So, therefor, I have to assume that the metaphysics of computer science is an empirical endeavour. Not only is it empirical, it is necessarily deterministic; there is absolutely no possibility of making the system "random" or "chaotic" or "free" because these are notions that are non-existent in nature. They are unobservable. The universe is ordered (which I, as a computational linguist, would call "grammatical"). I will not comment on the soul any further than to say that the universe is expanding and one should consider the implications proposed by Krauss's argument, something from nothing. Our body has clear cut parameters, there are very distinct constraints that guide the flow of energy, and information, to be necessarily sufficient with respect to the body of the cell; the membrane that defines the parameters of our body. The soul, in my opinion, is also a real indefinite term, and for my purposes at least, I can go about theorizing and testing the metaphysics without paying even a moment of attention to the probability of having a soul. In my opinion, I define the mind (which one may call a soul) as a finite recursive process only operating to the extent that the system containing the process is not malfective. In other words, while mind == 0: perform theorized operation.

 

In this sense, we can safely ignore the soul as long as our experiments sufficiently replicate observed behavior.

To say that there is no "free will" is also to say that I don't have any choices that I make, ever. It is a completely deterministic way to look at things. That I can tell it would take a greater stretch to see the world as deterministic than it would be to say that we each determine what our place in life is. Also, where do you get that there is a consensus on the world being predetermined? Without getting too much into religion, to say that everything is the way it is because there was no other way that it could happen is almost impossible. Think about every single thing that is done on a daily basis. Think of every choice that is made. Do I get out of bed or stay in it? Do I brush my teeth after I shower or before? Bacon and eggs or toast to go? Take the interstate or back roads? Every single thing that allows for a choice to be made between a minimum of two things is proof that free will exists. If even one choice is made different, a deterministic world could not exist.

 

As far as something from nothing, anything with emergent properties denies this. going down to one of the most basic things that shows obvious evidence of this: the cell. On it's own, the cell is nothing more than the organized structure of various chemicals bonded together in a recognizable pattern. However of this structure we get the most basic unit of what is known as life. The same thing could be said of the mind/soul. That and consciousness are emergent properties that as far as we can tell so far is only existent among animals.

 

Also, I'm not sure I agree with you that nature is inherently efficient. There are plenty of things that would indicate otherwise. If that were the case, it's doubtful that there would be any life larger than single celled organisms. In multi-cellular organisms more energy is needed to be able to keep "feeding" the individual cells. Cells also have to become specialized and only express certain parts of their genetic code. An easy example would be the human body. We have cells in our eyes that take in light reflected off surfaces so that we see where we're going so that we can catch our prey. We have lungs to be able to take in air and process the Oxygen so that it can be transported by our blood cells to the muscle cells. The energy that has already been stored in our bodies is consumed so that we can run after the prey. Once the prey has been caught, we must eat it. This involves the entirety of the digestion system. Eventually, once that's broken down, it has to be excreted as waste from our bowels or through sweat glands. I think it's safe to say that being a single cell would make that a lot easier. Chemicals could be processed directly instead of being broken down by acids in our stomachs.

 

And about your next to last line there on the soul... In order for that to be true you would then have to be stating that those with mental deficiencies have no mind/soul. And how is nothing in nature random/chaotic? Sure things may have chances that they will go one way or the other, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some chaos. Even breaking it down to the simple "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10" there's still some randomness to it as you don't know it's outcome. It could, in all actuality come down to more than 10 possible solutions. I could either have thought of a number outside the range I stated or I could outright lie about whether or not you guessed the correct number. It wouldn't be known to you, or anyone for that matter, until I actually said it. Think of Schroedinger's Cat. Whether it's dead or alive is unknowable, and therefore random, until it is actually observed.

[Popcorn Sutton]

For the purposes of computationality and sufficient replication of the mind, one must assume a simple, efficient, deterministic view of the universe. If we start postulating things like "quantum indeterminacy" and that the cat is both dead and alive, we cannot account for the flow of nature, the information that is obviously present, to base our assumptions and make rational, and well supported, predictions. Whether it is a computer (which turns out to be capable of making predictions that are unforeseeable by trained human specialists), or a human making the predictions, the predictions are verifiable by circumstance. Statistical mechanics cannot even be done without basing its assumptions on known deterministic phenomena. The point is that by accessing what is known, we can utilize the information (to the extent our knowledge) to make practical and verifiable predictions. I, personally, could care less whether the predictions are made by a computer or a brain, in fact, I prefer that a computer makes the predictions, especially if the computer has a list knowledge which greatly exceeds the number of cells in our brains. The brain can only be so dense, and for that reason it has a limited capacity. Theoretically, if you have a computer and the right process to analyze a corpus, you can keep adding memory and the process will continue to analyze the data. It could literally contain, and store, all data by all humans as long as the hard drive has the ability to store more data.

 

Look, when you talk abut free will, you make the assumption that a lot of others have made before you. It has to do with choice. Well, it actually doesn't have to do with choice, not in my opinion. It actually has to do with location. I define information as changes in the position of the universe. By this standard, to assume that things are free is a false assumption. Here's a simple experiment to verify whether you have free will or not. Take two tennis balls, throw them at someone with one racket, and observe whether the person with the racket is able to replicate the racket in order to hit both balls simultaneously. This would be the true definition of chaos and randomness. If any particle in the universe had the ability to clone itself and place itself in any location at any given moment in time with any trajectory, then there is a free will. However, since this possibility does not exist, I also have to assume that randomness, and chaos, does not exist because it cannot exist. It's obvious that things are predictable. A meteorite does not simply appear 10 feet off the ground with an exact trajectory which is sufficient to blow up the planet. You can go ahead and believe this illusion because you may not have any reason to believe otherwise, but as a scientist and an engineer, I cannot assume the free will because it would be like surrendering to stupidity. Sam Harris says something along these lines, "[You're golfing and you miss a putt. At that moment you say 'oh, I could've made that putt'. If you actually think about this statement, it's nonsense. Given the EXACT circumstances, the EXACT position of the universe in that moment, there is no conceivable way that you would've made that putt. If the universe were exactly the way that it was, you would have done the exact same thing]."

 

Your point relevant to my position on the soul is a red herring. I said that for my purposes, I can safely ignore the soul. By ignoring the soul, I cannot make any assumptions as to what has or does not have one.

 

You say "Im thinking of a number 1 through 10. Guess it." It doesn't appear without context. One can determine the result purely through knowing the position, the velocity, and the proximity of all factors that go into the decision. If all bits of knowledge are known, one can calculate the probability of a new and novel position of the universe, and more directly, of the most probable output, which is statistically significant and a likely prediction which is/will be verifiable by occurrence. The specification of all variables will eventually lead to a completely deterministic model of the universe. Statistics is currently the most promising approach for predicting events and delivering quality, trustworthy information without using the computationally inefficient method proposed by Einstein. This is not to say that GR will not be computational, it obviously is, just that it appears that it's not the type of computation utilized by our brains. Our brains do not measure information, they recognize it and they calculate predictions (which seems to be indistinguishable from actions and also seem to be a quantum effect in the sense that the information is entangled and prompted simultaneously).

Edited October 20, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[WWLabRat]

Your deterministic look at things is completely ignorant of the way the world is around you. Everything has a level of chance to it. Even the most repeated tests, no matter how standard still have a deviation. If there were no such deviation, there would be no need for one to graph things on a scatter plot. Hell, it wouldn't even be able to form a line if you were to graph data. If your deterministic view of the world were true, all data would be represented as a single point on a coordinate plane. For something to be completely and perfectly predictable, there could be no chance that it would do anything other than what was already predicted. Say, for example, that you are running a series of pH tests on a 7.00 buffer. That buffer has a known pH of 7. You could test that buffer on different models of meters and still come up with a pH of 7. However there's still always, no matter how high quality that buffer may be, at least a 0.00000000001% chance that it will deviate. No matter how infinitesimally small a chance is, it's still a chance and still leaves room for error that could not be present in a deterministic world. Going back to the 1 through 10 scenario I mentioned, no computer, or person for that matter, could predict whether or not I would lie and from there what the number may be. It could narrow down a bit based on whether or not it is even, odd, or what it's divisible by, but until I actually say what it is, there's always a margin of error.

 

How are brains not able to measure data? And even still, if they weren't, how would this translate to not being distinguishable from action? Even someone who is unconscious can still perform action. Usually these are referred to as reflexes. Sometimes they are correct in causing one to move away from harm (such as a tennis ball being thrown directly at the person and said person dodging) or incorrect in causing the person to move directly in the path of danger (person moves towards ball). And by the Law of Infinite Probability, there is a chance, albeit astronomically slim, but a chance all the same, that a second racket could "appear" to be able to hit both balls simultaneously. However for this to be possible, all the matter that would make up said secondary racket would have to come together at the same time and same place in the correct structure in order for us to see it, feel it, and for the ball to be repelled by it. It would be incredible for the matter to "appear" there, it would be something that much more amazing for it to be able to hold its form long enough to cause an observable effect.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Your deterministic look at things is completely ignorant of the way the world is around you. Everything has a level of chance to it. Even the most repeated tests, no matter how standard still have a deviation. If there were no such deviation, there would be no need for one to graph things on a scatter plot. Hell, it wouldn't even be able to form a line if you were to graph data. If your deterministic view of the world were true, all data would be represented as a single point on a coordinate plane. For something to be completely and perfectly predictable, there could be no chance that it would do anything other than what was already predicted. Say, for example, that you are running a series of pH tests on a 7.00 buffer. That buffer has a known pH of 7. You could test that buffer on different models of meters and still come up with a pH of 7. However there's still always, no matter how high quality that buffer may be, at least a 0.00000000001% chance that it will deviate. No matter how infinitesimally small a chance is, it's still a chance and still leaves room for error that could not be present in a deterministic world. Going back to the 1 through 10 scenario I mentioned, no computer, or person for that matter, could predict whether or not I would lie and from there what the number may be. It could narrow down a bit based on whether or not it is even, odd, or what it's divisible by, but until I actually say what it is, there's always a margin of error.

 

How are brains not able to measure data? And even still, if they weren't, how would this translate to not being distinguishable from action? Even someone who is unconscious can still perform action. Usually these are referred to as reflexes. Sometimes they are correct in causing one to move away from harm (such as a tennis ball being thrown directly at the person and said person dodging) or incorrect in causing the person to move directly in the path of danger (person moves towards ball). And by the Law of Infinite Probability, there is a chance, albeit astronomically slim, but a chance all the same, that a second racket could "appear" to be able to hit both balls simultaneously. However for this to be possible, all the matter that would make up said secondary racket would have to come together at the same time and same place in the correct structure in order for us to see it, feel it, and for the ball to be repelled by it. It would be incredible for the matter to "appear" there, it would be something that much more amazing for it to be able to hold its form long enough to cause an observable effect.

I don't think I have to explain myself much further on this topic. You are using a different approach, which is minimalist. I call myself a maximalist. By drawing the distinction I am not saying that things are unpredictable and I am not saying that they are predictable to any given person, I'm just saying that if our knowledge were sufficiently maximal, the predictions would approach and eventually become 100% probable.

 

You proposing the method of narrowing down a bit to whether it is even or odd is a categorical fallacy. It's an abstract approach to intelligence and it has no basis in reality. It's not that these conceptions are not able to be manifested, just that they are emergent properties of the brain and capable to be externalized. When it comes to externalization, we have to consider all of the other knowledge that emerged but just didn't have the strength in numbers to be externalized. A theory of mind cannot be based solely on subjective assumptions and should not be a rule-based approach. There definitely are laws of nature that constrain our freedom, and assuming this means that you must also assume that the mind does not deviate from these laws.

 

We have approximately 10 billion neurons, our neurons each have their own system which is connected to other systems. Every neuron is useful to some extent. When a neuron is activated, information is prompted and becomes recognizable, this much is necessary. What is not necessary is for our cells to have charts and graphs monitoring the trajectory and contact between every particle that goes through the cell. Why would our brains need that information? They don't, unless it comes to a scientific endeavour. The theory of everything proposed by Einstein turns out to be insufficient when it comes to the actual process of recognizing and prompting information. In this sense, BF Skinner had a much more accurate hypothesis, even though that one is mathematically and logically insufficient as well.

[Villain]

 

 

"Empirical Rationalist" I adhere to the idea that only what can be tested and shown to have a physical effect in the world is real... Everything else is just posturing... "my ideas are better than his ideas" meaningless with no positive evidence...

 

In what way is this not purely Empiricism?

[Moontanman]

 

In what way is this not purely Empiricism?

 

 

An empirical rationalist would require you demonstrate the reality of angels before he would debate how many can dance on the head of a pin...

[Villain]

 

 

An empirical rationalist would require you demonstrate the reality of angels before he would debate how many can dance on the head of a pin...

 

If you're not going to bother answering my question then why reply at all? On second thoughts don't bother answering this, it is clearly a waste of both our time.

[Moontanman]

 

If you're not going to bother answering my question then why reply at all? On second thoughts don't bother answering this, it is clearly a waste of both our time.

 

 

So the only correct answer was to agree with you?

[WWLabRat]

I don't think I have to explain myself much further on this topic. You are using a different approach, which is minimalist. I call myself a maximalist. By drawing the distinction I am not saying that things are unpredictable and I am not saying that they are predictable to any given person, I'm just saying that if our knowledge were sufficiently maximal, the predictions would approach and eventually become 100% probable.

 

You proposing the method of narrowing down a bit to whether it is even or odd is a categorical fallacy. It's an abstract approach to intelligence and it has no basis in reality. It's not that these conceptions are not able to be manifested, just that they are emergent properties of the brain and capable to be externalized. When it comes to externalization, we have to consider all of the other knowledge that emerged but just didn't have the strength in numbers to be externalized. A theory of mind cannot be based solely on subjective assumptions and should not be a rule-based approach. There definitely are laws of nature that constrain our freedom, and assuming this means that you must also assume that the mind does not deviate from these laws.

 

We have approximately 10 billion neurons, our neurons each have their own system which is connected to other systems. Every neuron is useful to some extent. When a neuron is activated, information is prompted and becomes recognizable, this much is necessary. What is not necessary is for our cells to have charts and graphs monitoring the trajectory and contact between every particle that goes through the cell. Why would our brains need that information? They don't, unless it comes to a scientific endeavour. The theory of everything proposed by Einstein turns out to be insufficient when it comes to the actual process of recognizing and prompting information. In this sense, BF Skinner had a much more accurate hypothesis, even though that one is mathematically and logically insufficient as well.

I don't think I see how I am a minimalist when it comes to the mind... Granted I do use only those bits of information that are actually relevant instead of your "maximalist" approach of using all data regardless of whether or not it is essential to our definition. And I'm saying that no matter how vast our knowledge may be, there's always room for error, whether from a computer or a brain. Nothing is 100% probable. At that point it would no longer be probable and would then be absolute. But, since there's always a chance of something occurring that wasn't predicted, then you can't have 100% predictability.

 

I also fail to see how narrowing down possibilities in a guessing game is a fallacy. All I have done is broken down what the mind naturally does without you realizing it. When some one says guess a number, even before they give a range, you are already arranging the numbers you know into categories (even/odd, divisible by..., fractions, imaginary numbers, etc). When the range is set, you can narrow those categories down. Now, instead of an infinite string of numbers, it now becomes part of a finite group (in this case 1-10). Most people will guess a number between 3 and 7 because it's the median and they are more likely to select the number or at least get close to it. But don't forget that between each number (between 3 and 4 or 5 and 6, etc) there is an infinite number of decimals that could follow. To be able to predict in infinites is an improbability.

 

I think you need to check your definitions a bit... Intelligence is a measure of someone's ability to comprehend, to understand, not a measure of what they know. You do understand that the mind is not a physical manifestation and from there can not be measured. This inherently makes it subjective, not objective. Since it's subjective, then the strict application of rules is pointless.

 

We may have 10 billion neurons, but each neuron individually is useless. It is only by networking with other neurons that they become useful at all. And our cells don't need charts and graphs to make sense of data. Charts and graphs are there to organize data into an easily understandable medium. Plus, individual cells aren't conscious, else we would be aware of every single cell in our bodies and would be in constant pain any time a cell dies off. Just imagine constant pain as your layers of skin slough off on a daily basis... And there's plenty of need for our brains to visualize data. Think about how people write out lists when trying to weigh pros and cons of different decisions.

 

Not sure what the Theory of Everything is doing in your argument...

 

 

If you're not going to bother answering my question then why reply at all? On second thoughts don't bother answering this, it is clearly a waste of both our time.

He has already answered your question. Just because he didn't answer the way you want doesn't mean that he hasn't answered at all.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Guys

 

The definition of empirical rationalist - and whether Moon is or is not an example can be saved for another thread please. And everyone please try a bit harder to read both questions and replies before commencing hostilities.

 

[overtone]

 

So when people say "impossible", i should read "very hard" thanks for clearing that up because generally I reserve the word impossible for things like free energy devices.

Not possible in the lifetime of this universe is a bit different from "very hard", though.

 

There is nothing in principle that prevents one from building - or more likely growing - a neural network capable of supporting the same patterns of patterns of activity that the human brain does. Then all it would need would be a long period of environmental stimulus and so forth.

 

snip

 

If you create a copyable neural net of evolving software algorithm. You would only need to school the first few AI's you could copy the rest you need from the first templates.

That might not be true. It depends on how you set up this "evolution" of the software algorithm, and whether you find it necessary to reconfigure the hardware on the fly (even add or subtract some of it) as well as the software of course, to successfully emulate a human mind. There is no reason to assume that the end result would present a copying problem any different than that of copying the human brain directly right now.

 

It's important to keep in mind that this human brain emulator is not going to be some enlarged and hypercapable version of a mainframe supercomputer as we know them now. Computers now don't think the same way the human brain does - they don't, for example, automatically form hierarchies of inclusive categories interconnected at all levels from incoming information as they process it. Their hardware and their software are disconnected entities of completely separated kind, that interact on the very lowest level of information only. They don't create analogies and process via metaphor (interactions of high level patterns far removed from the mechanical substrate) - they process bytes of information deterministically, bottom up, like stacked bricks or colliding billiard balls, in a fixed physical structure and set of connections.

 

 

 

Thinking or computing, be it in a human brain or a computer, still boils down to responses and actions based on routines and subroutines that have been programmed into the entity. The only difference between the two is how that programming is created.

The human brain, in the process of supporting the patterns we term "mind", creates the majority of its "routines" and "subroutines" itself, internally - it is largely self programming, including the configuration of its hardware. This creates differences in kind, not just quantity or specific event, in the patterns of mechanical processing supported.

[EdEarl]

It's important to keep in mind that this human brain emulator is not going to be some enlarged and hypercapable version of a mainframe supercomputer as we know them now. Computers now don't think the same way the human brain does - they don't, for example, automatically form hierarchies of inclusive categories interconnected at all levels from incoming information as they process it. Their hardware and their software are disconnected entities of completely separated kind, that interact on the very lowest level of information only. They don't create analogies and process via metaphor (interactions of high level patterns far removed from the mechanical substrate) - they process bytes of information deterministically, bottom up, like stacked bricks or colliding billiard balls, in a fixed physical structure and set of connections.

There are meta languages that process functions as other languages process data. They simplify functions via optimization and constant folding but do not use variables for storing data values.

 

I think the brain does meta language processing, but does it differently than functional programming languages.