I’m in no way saying we know how thinking works in it’s entirety. But I am saying we know a fair amount, and it’s not supernatural. It’s determined by electric

I’m in no way saying we know how thinking works in it’s entirety. But I am saying we know a fair amount, and it’s not supernatural. It’s determined by electrical and chemical signals in the brain. There’s nothing in theory preventing you from writing all that information down on paper, as it is after all, information. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_an... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain If you’re claiming that thinking for humans involves a soul or some other supernatural element, then I completely disagree with that. > It's meaningless to draw any conclusions from a comparison between ML and human thought which we don't understand at all. Again, just to be clear, we don’t have to understand consciousness completely to understand thought to some degree. If you’re unfamiliar with work in this field, it’s quite complex, and there is a complexity of understanding even if we don’t understand everything. So saying we don’t understand thought at all is simply ignorant of the science. Here’s some basics if you’re curious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience Also, comparisons with ML are not meaningless in the slightest. Information processing is integral to brain function, so there are definitely things to be learned by comparing the two. Indeed the Wikipedia intro to neuroscience puts it really well, illustrating why the comment that comparisons of ML are meaningless, just isn’t accurate. “is a multidisciplinary science that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, computer science and mathematical modeling to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits.”