9 ms·

Does it not compute?

• heavyset_go 4y ago
  That's at the crux of the computational theory of mind, for which there are plenty of proponents and critics.
  • dqpb 4y ago
    The number of proponents and critics is not relevant.
    • heavyset_go 4y ago
      Approaching this debate from first principles while ignoring the decades of thought and research that have gone into it doesn't lead to fruitful discussion. Acknowledging what prominent researchers, philosophers, experts, etc have thought and said about this does, however. For example, the definition of "compute" can vary greatly, which we can see here in the comments section versus what is usually considered computing when it comes to the computational theory of mind. Often regarding this topic, "computing" means symbol manipulation and representation a la Turing machines, whereas many in this comment section interpret "computing" as the action of taking input and producing output. My point with the comment is that I'm no expert, and I'm not someone who has really thought about or tried to tackle this problem. There are plenty of people who have, though, and they can make more insightful, apt and convincing arguments that are worth looking into before accepting or dismissing the concept entirely.
• gizajob 4y ago
  No, it thinks. Computing is a subset of thought.
  • cercatrova 4y ago
    It takes inputs from sensors and produces output, as well as cogitating on internal states and data. How is that not computation?
    • rdevsrex 4y ago
      The map is not the territory. Perhaps computation is a good model, but not really what's going on. Sort of like how the standard model in physics needs an understanding of quantum gravity. It also gets into metaphysics, as some people believe that mind is not limited to the brain.
  • Stupulous 4y ago
    Can you give an example of a thought or type of thought that is not contained within the set of all computations?
    • astrange 4y ago
      Can you do algorithms in your head with more than two or three variables and reliably get the right answer?
      • Stupulous 4y ago
        That's the opposite, an example of a computation that is outside of the set of all thoughts. Notably, such examples wouldn't exist if computation was strictly a subset of thought, but that can be waved away by acknowledging that the brain has finite resources that it does its best to use sparingly. Also, brains definitely run algorithms with staggering numbers of variables, e.g. object recognition from noisy sense data.
        • astrange 4y ago
          Running algorithms doesn’t make something a computer. Lots of things have SoCs in them but aren’t general computers if eg you can’t change the algorithms they do. And all the results about all computers being equivalent only work if they have access to infinite storage and power. That computation isn’t outside the set of all theoretical thoughts, it’s just outside the set of all ones in actually existing human brains that don’t have access to a pen and paper.
          • Stupulous 4y ago
            Maybe I was unclear, but I completely agree both that your example does not prove that computation is a superset of thought. I'm looking for an example that would at least suggest the opposite- something humans can think that a computer couldn't compute.
      • Retric 4y ago
        Yes, I can do many such calculations on 10’s of thousands of variables quite easily. Accurately throwing a ball while running for example is a complex activity.
  • d_tr 4y ago
    I am pretty sure that we have not ruled out the possibility that a computer program could simulate a brain, have we?
    • Robotbeat 4y ago
      A computer program can simulate the known chemically-relevant physical laws, including quantum mechanics. Saying the mind is somehow beyond quantifiable physics is equivalent to dualism.
      • gizajob 4y ago
        So get back to us when you've written it and your computationally simulated brain is talking to us.
        • Robotbeat 4y ago
          Is the human brain doing something fundamentally different than some other animal brain, say a Chimpanzee or mouse? Or is it just doing more of it, is it just larger and perhaps a bit more efficient and maybe organized? I see no reason to say the human brain is a fundamentally different kind of computation than any other animal brain. So is there some animal brain, no matter how primitive, that we could in principle simulate? I think so. I think that is realistically within our capacity.
          • gizajob 4y ago
            There's a big difference between having an operating computable function computing on real hardware, and having the idea that a certain phenomenon is potentially computable.
            • Robotbeat 4y ago
              Well yes, but what does that have to do with the original point, the implied claim that there are some thoughts which are not computable?
  • dqpb 4y ago
    No, thought is a subset of computing.