5 ms·

So your claim is that the Human mind is a physical machine and that computers are also physical machines and thus both are bound to physical laws... and this ne

So your claim is that the Human mind is a physical machine and that computers are also physical machines and thus both are bound to physical laws... and this negates Penrose how? Do you think Penrose disagrees that the Human mind is bound by physical laws??

Analemma_ 9y ago
I think Penrose is handwaving to try and have it both ways: he's saying the brain obeys physical laws, but that it does not embed a formal computational model. But that's impossible: the second is a logical consequence of the first.
- manyoso 9y ago
  "But that's impossible: the second is a logical consequence of the first." No, it is not. It is far from proven that universal physical law can everywhere be simulated by a Turing machine. If you had proof of that you'd be up for a Nobel. So publish your paper or perhaps consider that Roger Penrose is not an idiot and you might not know what you are talking about.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - gpderetta 9y ago
    It is not proven and possibly it can never be proven. But it can be disproven, and given the success of the Church-Turing thesis, I would say that the burden of proof rest on those that claim that a system more powerful than a Turing machine exist.
    - manyoso 9y ago
      Fair enough, but that is a far cry from 'logically impossible' which the parent comment explicitly stated.
Udo 9y ago
I'm not making a claim, I argue based on what we already know. Penrose is the one claiming something here. > Do you think Penrose disagrees that the Human mind is bound by physical laws?? Yes. Having read his work in the past, I know that he disagrees the human mind is bound by physical laws. This is the whole reason behind the argument they're putting forth to begin with: they postulate that humans are capable of making an inference that could not possibly be made by a machine intelligence. However, it has never been shown that we are not a machine intelligence.
- manyoso 9y ago
  Then I am sorry to say you have no idea what you are talking about. Penrose nowhere claims the human mind is not bound by physical laws. Cite one place where he says anything like this or go home.
  - simonh 9y ago
    He argues that quantum magic enables human minds to do things that formal computer systems cannot do. I'm not sure what his position is on computers that incorporate quantum magic though.
    - Udo 9y ago
      I suspect the argument manyoso is setting up here is based on sophistry around the concept of "physical laws". His stance is most likely that quantum woo is part of the physical laws, in the same way a fundamentalist religious person would assert that the content of a holy book is part of the physical laws. What I - and I hope most people - mean by the phrase is different though, it's the body of actual physical laws that have been shown scientifically. > I'm not sure what his position is on computers that incorporate quantum magic though. Interesting thought experiment. I suspect he would be fine with those in theory, however since he already declared this special connection to the supernatural for humans it'd be interesting what computer components he would consider equivalent. But the beauty of his position is that, in the event of a generally intelligent computer emerging, he could always claim that any given nanoscale computing component is the silicon analogue of "quantum microtubules" (which was his woo-related organelle of choice in neurons). It's not like he ever has to prove his claims in order to be taken seriously.

Analemma_ 9y ago

I think Penrose is handwaving to try and have it both ways: he's saying the brain obeys physical laws, but that it does not embed a formal computational model. But that's impossible: the second is a logical consequence of the first.

manyoso 9y ago
"But that's impossible: the second is a logical consequence of the first." No, it is not. It is far from proven that universal physical law can everywhere be simulated by a Turing machine. If you had proof of that you'd be up for a Nobel. So publish your paper or perhaps consider that Roger Penrose is not an idiot and you might not know what you are talking about.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gpderetta 9y ago
  It is not proven and possibly it can never be proven. But it can be disproven, and given the success of the Church-Turing thesis, I would say that the burden of proof rest on those that claim that a system more powerful than a Turing machine exist.
  - manyoso 9y ago
    Fair enough, but that is a far cry from 'logically impossible' which the parent comment explicitly stated.

Udo 9y ago

I'm not making a claim, I argue based on what we already know. Penrose is the one claiming something here. > Do you think Penrose disagrees that the Human mind is bound by physical laws?? Yes. Having read his work in the past, I know that he disagrees the human mind is bound by physical laws. This is the whole reason behind the argument they're putting forth to begin with: they postulate that humans are capable of making an inference that could not possibly be made by a machine intelligence. However, it has never been shown that we are not a machine intelligence.

manyoso 9y ago
Then I am sorry to say you have no idea what you are talking about. Penrose nowhere claims the human mind is not bound by physical laws. Cite one place where he says anything like this or go home.
- simonh 9y ago
  He argues that quantum magic enables human minds to do things that formal computer systems cannot do. I'm not sure what his position is on computers that incorporate quantum magic though.
  - Udo 9y ago
    I suspect the argument manyoso is setting up here is based on sophistry around the concept of "physical laws". His stance is most likely that quantum woo is part of the physical laws, in the same way a fundamentalist religious person would assert that the content of a holy book is part of the physical laws. What I - and I hope most people - mean by the phrase is different though, it's the body of actual physical laws that have been shown scientifically. > I'm not sure what his position is on computers that incorporate quantum magic though. Interesting thought experiment. I suspect he would be fine with those in theory, however since he already declared this special connection to the supernatural for humans it'd be interesting what computer components he would consider equivalent. But the beauty of his position is that, in the event of a generally intelligent computer emerging, he could always claim that any given nanoscale computing component is the silicon analogue of "quantum microtubules" (which was his woo-related organelle of choice in neurons). It's not like he ever has to prove his claims in order to be taken seriously.