4 ms·

Whether certain behaviors in the universe are uncomputable or not is irrelevant. If we classify "humans" as intelligent and assume no spooky immaterial aspects

Whether certain behaviors in the universe are uncomputable or not is irrelevant. If we classify "humans" as intelligent and assume no spooky immaterial aspects of consciousness, you already have an existence proof that intelligence is computable.

User23 5y ago
That doesn't follow from the given premises. I assume the hidden leg of your rhetorical enthymeme is that the universe is a Turing machine. The burden of proof for such a claim, if you want to introduce it as an axiom, is on you. And no, the Church-Turing thesis does not prove that claim. As a postulate, I'm happy to accept it for the sake of argument. And if we assume the universe is a Turing machine then sure the existence of human intelligence proves that a Turing Machine can simulate human intelligence and therefore it's computable. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell nothing further follows. Perhaps it's correct, but it's rather dull too.
- ericjang 5y ago
  > I assume the hidden leg of your rhetorical enthymeme is that the universe is a Turing machine No, I am not making that claim. Not sure how you inferred that. ... by any chance, are you the author of the paper linked in this post? I am asking because I wonder if you are a philosopher by training, rather than being an actual AI researcher. If you are, I wonder if you'd heard of the essay "Newton's Flaming Laser Sword" (https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/Newtons_Flaming_Laser_Sword https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/Newtons_Flaming_Laser_Sw...)
  - User23 5y ago
    I’m not. I’m just an interested layman who likes to read and think. And if I’m really fortunate, to think clearly and distinctly. Evidently then whatever claim it was you were making was not clear to me. I’d be obliged if you made it so. In case it’s not obvious I supposed you implied the universe is a TM on account of that was the first way it occurred to me to make sense of your claim. Incidentally, that Newton’s laser sword monograph was interesting but philosophically rather immature. I think the author would greatly benefit from reading some pragmaticist philosophy, in particular that of C.S. Peirce. Who, by the way, was a mathematician and logician in the Frege tier. Frankly though I do share the author’s disdain for the more navel-gazing pursuits that occupy many contemporary philosophy departments.
    - ericjang 5y ago
      Another commenter made exactly the same point I try to make, so I copy them here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29293687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29293687

User23 5y ago

That doesn't follow from the given premises. I assume the hidden leg of your rhetorical enthymeme is that the universe is a Turing machine. The burden of proof for such a claim, if you want to introduce it as an axiom, is on you. And no, the Church-Turing thesis does not prove that claim. As a postulate, I'm happy to accept it for the sake of argument. And if we assume the universe is a Turing machine then sure the existence of human intelligence proves that a Turing Machine can simulate human intelligence and therefore it's computable. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell nothing further follows. Perhaps it's correct, but it's rather dull too.

ericjang 5y ago
> I assume the hidden leg of your rhetorical enthymeme is that the universe is a Turing machine No, I am not making that claim. Not sure how you inferred that. ... by any chance, are you the author of the paper linked in this post? I am asking because I wonder if you are a philosopher by training, rather than being an actual AI researcher. If you are, I wonder if you'd heard of the essay "Newton's Flaming Laser Sword" (https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/Newtons_Flaming_Laser_Sword https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/Newtons_Flaming_Laser_Sw...)
- User23 5y ago
  I’m not. I’m just an interested layman who likes to read and think. And if I’m really fortunate, to think clearly and distinctly. Evidently then whatever claim it was you were making was not clear to me. I’d be obliged if you made it so. In case it’s not obvious I supposed you implied the universe is a TM on account of that was the first way it occurred to me to make sense of your claim. Incidentally, that Newton’s laser sword monograph was interesting but philosophically rather immature. I think the author would greatly benefit from reading some pragmaticist philosophy, in particular that of C.S. Peirce. Who, by the way, was a mathematician and logician in the Frege tier. Frankly though I do share the author’s disdain for the more navel-gazing pursuits that occupy many contemporary philosophy departments.
  - ericjang 5y ago
    Another commenter made exactly the same point I try to make, so I copy them here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29293687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29293687