3 ms·
the issue isn't brains no algorithm running on a cpu can move a muscle -- it is precisely that movement is a spatiotemporal property which means no turing mac
by mjburgess 5y ago
the issue isn't brains
no algorithm running on a cpu can move a muscle --
it is precisely that movement is a spatiotemporal property which means no turing machine can realise it
movement isn't a symbolic operation
- tsimionescu 5y agoThis is such a strange claim to make, I can't even tell what you could have meant. We are surrounded by simplistic mechanical computations moving muscles , and have been for more than a hundred years, since the industrial revolution at least.
- gnramires 5y agoWhat do you suppose those computers are doing, then? ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4DML7FIWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4DML7FIWk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfb6aEUMC04&t=115s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfb6aEUMC04&t=115s
- PeterisP 5y agoI would go a step further and look at the research on medical devices for spinal-damage patients which try to literally control their existing muscles through a computer; the concept of neuroprosthesis and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_electrical_stimulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_electrical_stimulat... working to design algorithms on CPU to move muscles, as the parent post words it.
- ineedasername 5y agoIn this very narrow sense that you are defining, no brain can move a muscle either. All it can do is send signals. A computer can do the same. If you are making a broader claim about the limits of hardware vs. wetware the you will need to clarify things a bit further.