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

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

We can simulate a water molecule, does it make a turing machine then? Is single protein? A whole cell? 1000 cells in some invertebrate?

Simulation doesn’t work backwards, it’s not an implied equivalency of turing completeness for both directions. If brain is a turing machine we can map one to one it’s whole function to any existing turing machine, not simulate it with some degree of accuracy.

[–] highalectical@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 months ago

With automata, something that is turing complete can also do what all lower levels of automata can do. E.g. something that is a turing machine can function as a finite state machine, but it is not just a finite state machine. Likewise, a soul is capable of doing all computations a turing machine can do (this is indisbutably true, otherwise we'd have never been able to make computers in the first place), but it isn't just a turing machine.

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

Have you read Göedel, Escher, Bach? It's a cool book, I recommend it!