3 ms·
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
by 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 agoRunning 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 agoMaybe 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.