Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Shiningc t1_j70eyhx wrote

Well, that's not true because CPUs are Turing complete, which means that it's capable of any kind of computation that is physically possible, and that includes the "mind".

It's just that the current development of "AI" is nowhere near close to achieving this "mind".

If you say "Oh it's just too complex, we'll never understand it" then that's indistinguishable from superstition. It's no different than saying we'll never understand the Greek Gods because they're too complex beings.


ReExperienceUrSenses OP t1_j70g0o5 wrote

I didnt say we’ll never understand it, just that its way more complicated than we give credit for.

And aside from the point I argue that the brain isn’t computing, just because something is Turing complete doesnt mean we can build a machine to compute it. The Turing machine is a construct with infinite time and memory. We have neither.


Shiningc t1_j70gb4a wrote

What? Neither does the brain have infinite time and memory.


ReExperienceUrSenses OP t1_j70gwoi wrote

I’m saying that there are plenty of examples that even if something is turing complete, we cant do anything with it if it would take our machines 1000 yrs to compute


quailtop t1_j72jh4m wrote

This is not what Turing-complete means! Turing-complete for X simply means any algorithm a Turing computer can execute, X can do. Turing computers are not capable of magic - they are the litmus test for what's feasible, but it can't execute every physical computation. For example, it cannot execute a quantum algorithm.

There is no evidence to suggest a Turing computer can reproduce the "mind", which is really the crux of OP's point. If your model of cognition relies on mental processes being reducible to symbol manipulation, then, yes, a mind can be formed from a Turing-complete device. But OP is arguing that cognition is not, even in principle, symbolic manipulation - rather, it is substrate-dependent (the choice of machinery used to implement directly factors into the experience of consciousness or cognition).

It is not an uncommon view in the philosophy of cognition.


Shiningc t1_j72p1wx wrote

That is what Turing complete means. We're assuming that a Turing computer is capable of doing any kind of computation that is physically possible. Of course, it needs a quantum computer to do quantum calculations, so the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle states that it needs a quantum computer in order to truly execute every physical calculation possible, but that's whole another beast. Turing-complete just means minus the quantum processes.

It is possible that the human brain is doing some sort of quantum calculations, but most would probably doubt.

>There is no evidence to suggest a Turing computer can reproduce the "mind", which is really the crux of OP's point.

Of course that there's no "evidence" because we have never created a mind yet. The point is that a Turing complete CPU is physically indistinguishable from the human brain. They are the same thing in principle.

The "magic" is in the programming. We just don't know how to program a mind yet.

The "evidence" is in the human brain. The mind exists inside of the human brain. The human brain is a physical object, just like a CPU is. The human brain is Turing-complete. So is a CPU.