Search Ideas
1806 ideas match your query.:
the the title of the page
Minor quibble but there’s a double “the”. Consider revising your idea to fix this typo.
@tom-nassis asked:
[H]ow do we articulate and explain a computer and creative program with freedom, free will, choice, agency, and autonomy?
I think physical determinism (which the computer as a physical object must obey) and free will etc are not in any conflict because they describe different phenomena on different levels of emergence.
And I’d go one step further: not only do they not conflict, physical determinism is required for free will to exist. It is because computers obey physical determinism that they are able to run programs in the first place, including creative programs, ie programs with free will.
2) What is the demarcation between something that processes information and the human brain?
You wrote you “have no interest in objecting against” the notion that the brain processes information. Are you asking about how the brain differs from other information processors? If so, I suggest you edit the question accordingly.
1) What is the demarcation between something that processes information and something that does not?
See #513. Something that processes information must be given some information (at least one bit) and then follow some rule for what to do with it. Then, optionally, return the result. Like the OR gate, but unlike the light switch.
Or is there something I’m missing?
It’s not a comparison. The brain literally is a computer.
What you deride as a “deflationary concept” is, to me, a vital approach to getting rid of the kind of biological mysticism that states brains have some special essence that computers could never have. Which then causes some people to think computers could never be creative or sentient, say.
As I recall, people used to think similarly about electricity: they discovered electricity in organisms before they figured out how to harness it through technology. Until then, they thought only organisms could produce electricity because they had some ‘special sauce’ that technology could never have.
Once we accept that brains are computers, there is no room left for this kind of mysticism. It’s really just taking computational universality seriously.
Please don’t submit multiple criticisms in the same post. Submit one criticism per post only. Familiarize yourself with how Veritula works (#465) before you continue.
as Dennis states below
It was below when you wrote the comment, but now that it’s rendered it’s actually above! Will revise this part for you.
Well, discussions are necessarily a ‘social’ activity in that they involve at least two people, yes. I just don’t want Veritula to be yet another social network.
In a mixed society, people can prioritize truth seeking or fitting in but not both.
The mind is a computer. An individual person is a computer.
No, the mind is a program. A computer is a physical object; the mind is not.
In a Deutschian understanding, ‘person’ and ‘mind’ are synonymous. So a person isn’t a computer, either. A person is also a program.
You may consider it banal but is it false?
An OR gate takes two bits of information and transforms them into a single bit of information by following a specific rule. It clearly processes information. And if that’s true for an OR gate, why not for the brain?
Well non-existence, by definition, can’t exist, right? Rules itself out.
I’d like that.
And yes inexplicit criticism is good! And not taking infinite criticism is bad. Someone should make a list of understandable pitfalls one ought to avoid when trying to apply critical rationalism.
(Logan Chipkin)
Inexplicit criticism is good, maybe you can make it explicit someday and we can continue.
Yes, it should. I am left with no counterargument but a mild sense of dissatisfaction.
(Logan Chipkin)
Since you agree (#539) that logic is part of philosophy, the law of the excluded middle should satisfy you as a philosophical answer, no?
Doesn’t physics presume the existence of physical objects and laws? Ie it presumes the existence of something physical. So it presumes existence itself. In which case physics can’t be the arbiter here.
That’s not a counterargument - so maybe that’s it, after all.
(Logan Chipkin)
If non-existence is to mean anything at all, I think that’s it, yes.
Btw I do sometimes wonder if the problem of explaining why there’s something rather than nothing is connected to the fact that there’s a difference between Platonic reality and physical reality.
(Logan Chipkin)
I don’t mean it as a word game, I mean it literally.