Search ideas

People use the same argument to "prove" the existence of God. The existence of anything can then be proved simply by including in the definition that it must exist. Example: Dragons must exist because I can define "dragon" as what is traditionally thought of a dragon, plus the claim that it exists.
Also you can't at the same time say that non-existence is ruled out on logical grounds, and then define it as something that's clearly possible, namely the absence of the universe. It's conflating an abstract concept for a physical one.

@nick-willmott, you objected to "a brain is a computer." Would you also object to "a mind (a person) is a program?" Why or why not?

✅

Nick, I think your criticisms are indirectly addressing my concerns. Would you say the framing of "The brain is a computer" does more to obscure and mislead than to illuminate?
We can invoke the word "computer" to say that the brain processes information.
But if that's all we're saying, then I'd say the word "computer" brings so much irrelevant baggage that it might be counterproductive.
Is this why you object to using the word "computer?"

Nick, I think your criticisms are indirectly addressing my concerns.

Would you say the framing of "The brain is a computer" does more to obscure and mislead than to illuminate?
We can invoke the word "computer" to say that the brain processes information.
But if that's all we're saying, then I'd say the word "computer" brings so much irrelevant baggage that it might be counterproductive.
Is this why you object to using the word "computer?"

You're not understanding me. I'm not trying to argue such things don't process information.

I can't argue against "Is the brain a computer?" + "Anything that processes information is a computer" combination. If we're taking an essentialist definition of the word computer then we should ditch the term and the the title of the page should just be "Does the brain process information?" - which I have no interest in objecting against.

My original attempted criticism was against the statement that anything processing information is a computer. (Taking a deflationary concept of a computer is not what I presumed was meant in the title of the discussion).

Parking the word computer aside, based on the resultant thread, more interesting questions to me are:
1) What is the demarcation between something that processes information and something that does not?
2) What is the demarcation between something that processes information and the human brain?

Yes, and I can accept that the brain is a computer.

But, we might make a number of subsequent moves.

The mind is a computer. An individual person is a computer.

And yes, "not the kind of computer people traditionally think of when they hear the term, like a laptop or desktop," as Dennis states in #498.

But, the term 'computer' implies deterministic connotations.

David Deutsch and others talk about the 'creative program' each human possesses. This also implies determinism.

I know that David Deutsch and Karl Popper strongly side with free will in the free will / determinism debate.

But how do we articulate and explain a computer and creative program with freedom, free will, choice, agency, and autonomy?

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.

Superseded by #560. This comment was generated automatically.

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.

The mind is a computer.

No, the mind is a program. A computer is a physical object; the mind is not.

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?

Superseded by #556. This comment was generated automatically.

Yes, and I can accept that the brain is a computer.

But, we might make a number of subsequent moves.

The mind is a computer. An individual person is a computer.

And yes, "not the kind of computer people traditionally think of when they hear the term, like a laptop or desktop," as Dennis states below.

But, the term 'computer' implies deterministic connotations.

David Deutsch and others talk about the 'creative program' each human possesses. This also implies determinism.

I know that David Deutsch and Karl Popper strongly side with free will in the free will / determinism debate.

But how do we articulate and explain a computer and creative program with freedom, free will, choice, agency, and autonomy?

Yes, and I can accept that the brain is a computer.

Therefore, we might make a number of subsequent moves.

The mind is a computer. An individual person is a computer.

And yes, "not the kind of computer people traditionally think of when they hear the term, like a laptop or desktop," as Dennis states below.

But, the term 'computer' implies deterministic connotations.

David Deutsch and others talk about the 'creative program' each human possesses. This also implies determinism.

I know that David Deutsch and Karl Popper strongly side with free will in the free will / determinism debate.

But how do we articulate and explain a computer and creative program with freedom, free will, choice, agency, and autonomy?

Veritula deserves to scale to the size of Wikipedia.

But it never will, unless its users innovate.

How can the global success of Wikipedia inspire Veritula?

I know what you mean, but Veritula unavoidably facilitates public (i.e. social) interactions, no? Of a certain kind, to be clear. Ideas, ideas, ideas.

I know what you mean, but Veritula unavoidably facilitates public (i.e. social) interactions, no?

Thank you, Dennis.👍

✅

✅

I'll have to tap out sorry. Possibly talking on different trajectories.

If an OR gate is conceived as a computer then the initial post about the brain being conceived as a computer is a banality / an uninteresting syllogism.

Superseded by #546. This comment was generated automatically.

Well non-existence, by definition, can’t exist, right? Rules itself out.