6 ms·

You seem to think human consious reasoning and understanding are magic. The human brain is nothing more than a bio computer and it can't compute either, whether

• theodorejb 4y ago
  > The human brain is nothing more than a bio computer That's a pretty simplistic view. How do you know we can't determine whether an arbitrary program will halt or not (assuming access to all inputs and enough time to examine it)? What in principle would prevent us from doing so? But computers in principle cannot, since the problem is often non-algorithmic. For example, consider the following program, which is passed the text of the file it is in as input: function doesHalt($program, $inputs): bool {...} $input = $argv[0]; // contents of this file if (doesHalt($input, [$input])) { while(true) { print "Wrong! It doesn't halt!"; } } else { print "Wrong! It halts!"; } It is impossible for the doesHalt function to return the correct result for the program. But as a human I can examine the function to understand what it will return for the input, and then correctly decide whether or not the program will halt.
  • laszlokorte 4y ago
    no you can't. only for some of the inputs. and for those you could also write an algorithmic doesHalt function that is analog to your reasoning.
    • theodorejb 4y ago
      For what input would a human in principle be unable to determine the result (assuming unlimited time)? It doesn't matter what the algorithmic doesHalt function returns - it will always be incorrect for this program. What makes you certain there is an algorithmic analog for all human reasoning?
      • ogogmad 4y ago
        You don't get it. If you fed this program the source code of your mind, body, and room you're in, then it would wrong-foot you too.
        • theodorejb 4y ago
          Lol. Is there source code for our mind?
          • ogogmad 4y ago
            There might be or there mightn't be -- your argument doesn't help us figure out either way. By its source code, I mean something that can simulate your mind's activity.
            • glenstein 4y ago
              Exactly. It's moments like this where Daniel Dennett has it exactly right that people run up against the limits of their own failures of imagination. And they treat those failures like foundational axioms, and reason from them. Or, in his words, they mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity. So when challenged to consider that, say, code problems may well be equivalent to brain problems, the response will be a mere expression of incredulity rather than an argument with any conceptual foundation.
              • DontchaKnowit 4y ago
                And it is also true to say that you are running into the limits of your imagination by saying that a brain can be simulated by software : you are falling back to the closest model we have : discrete math/computers, and are failing to imagine a computational mechanism involved in the operation of a brain that is not possible with a traditional computer. The point is we currently have very little understanding of what gives rise to consciousness, so what is the point of all this pontificating and grand standing. Its silly. We've no idea what we are talking about at present. Clearly, our state of the art models of nueral-like computation do not really simulate consciousness at all, so why is the default assumption that they could if we get better at making them? The burden of evidence is on conputational models to prove they can produce a consciousness model, not the other way around.
  • bidirectional 4y ago
    Can you name a single form of analysis which a human can employ but would be impossible to program a computer to perform? Can you tell me if a program which searches for counterexamples to the Collatz conjecture halts? Turing's entire analysis started from the point of what humans could do.
  • ogogmad 4y ago
    This is a silly argument. If you fed this program the source code of your own brain and could never see the answer, then it would fool you just the same.
    • theodorejb 4y ago
      You are assuming that our minds are an algorithmic program which can be implemented with source code, but this just begs the question. I don't believe the human mind can be reduced to this. We can accomplish many non-algorithmic things such as understanding, creativity, loving others, appreciating beauty, experiencing joy or sadness, etc.
      • ogogmad 4y ago
        > You are assuming Your argument doesn't disprove my assumption *. In which case, what's the point of it? * - I don't necessarily believe this assumption. But I do dislike bad arguments.
  • TchoBeer 4y ago
    actually a computer can in fact tell that this function halts. And while the human brain might not be a bio-computer, I'm not sure, its computational prowess are doubtfully stronger than a quantum turing machine, which can't solve the halting problem either.
  • kaba0 4y ago
    Here you are: func main() { var n = 4; OUTER: loop { for (var i = 2; i < n/2; i++) { if (isPrime(i) && isPrime(n-i)) { n += 2; continue OUTER; // Goldbach’s conjecture } break; } }