the-podcast guy recently linked this essay, its old, but i don't think its significantly wrong (despite gpt evangelists) also read weizenbaum, libs, for the other side of the coin

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

because that’s a task for computer, my second example: giving you two words, it would be slower for computer than arriving at 300 th word, while for you it would be significantly faster than counting

If your thesis is that human brains do not work perfectly the same way, and not that the analogy with computers in general is wrong, then sure, but nobody disagrees with that thesis, then. I don't think that any adult alive has proposed that a human brain is just a conventional binary computer.

However, this argument fails when it comes to the thesis of analogy with computers in general. Not sure how it is even supposed to be addressing it.

fundamentally a question is brain a turing machine? I rather think not

Well, firstly, a Turing machine is an idea, and not an actual device or a type of device.
Secondly, if your thesis is that Turing machine does not model how brains work, then what's your argument here?

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

of course I can’t prove that brain is not a turing machine, I would be world famous if I could. Computers are turing machines yes? They cannot do non-Turing machines operations (decisions or whatever that’s called)

What comparing computer with brain gives to science, I’m asking again for third time in this thread. What insight it provides, aside from mechanizing us to the world? That short term memory exists? a stone age child could tell you that. That information goes from the eyes as bits like a camera? That’s already significantly wrong. That you recall like a photograph read out from your computer? Also very likely wrong

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

of course I can’t prove that brain is not a turing machine, I would be world famous if I could

Okay, so, what is your basis for thinking that, for example, if a brain was given some set of rules such as 'if you are given the symbol "A", think of number 1 and go to the next symbol' and 'if you are given the symbol "B" and are thinking of number 1, think of number 2 and go back by two symbols' and some sequence of symbols, that that brain wouldn't be capable of working with those rules?

Computers are turing machines yes?

As in, they are modelled by Turing machines sufficiently well in some sense? Sure.

They cannot do non-Turing machines operations (decisions or whatever that’s called)

What? What are 'non-Turing machines operations'? The term 'Turing machine' refers to generalisations of finite automata. In this context, what they are doing is receiving input and reacting to it depending on their current state. I can provide some examples of finite automata implementations in Python code, if you want me to.
The word 'decision' doesn't carry any meaning in this context.

What comparing computer with brain gives to science, I’m asking again for third time in this thread

I don't recall you asking this question before, and I do not have an answer. I also don't see the question as relevant to the exchange so far.

That information goes from the eyes as bits like a camera? That’s already significantly wrong

A bit is a unit of information. If we treat the signal that the eyes send to the brain as carrying any sort of information, you can't argue that the brain doesn't (EDIT: I initially forgot to include the word 'doesn't) receive the information in bits. If you claim otherwise, you don't understand what information is and/or what bits are.

That you recall like a photograph read out from your computer? Also very likely wrong

Nobody is claiming, however, that your brain pulls up an analogue of a .bmp when you recall an image. You likely remember some details of an image, and 'subconsciously' reconstruct the 'gaps'. Computers can handle such tasks just fine, as well.

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That information goes from the eyes as bits like a camera?

Information goes in to the optic nerve as electrical signals, which is why we can glue wires to the optic nerve and use a camera to send visual information to the brain. I think wek?e been able to do that for twenty years. We just need a computer to change the bits from the camera in to the correct electric impulses.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago

I didn’t use words optic nerve by chance, you can find out it’s retina excitation, not the nerve itself. Because the eye already does pre processing. But that reminded me that here actually informational understanding helped cause they couldn’t understand how could it send that much data (turn out it doesn’t). So one win for informational theory by showing something couldn’t be 🥰