Search Ideas

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?

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.

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)

To the question of existence.

You mean to the question of existence, or in general? Cuz in general I’d think of it as a criticism.

(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?

Yes (Logan Chipkin)

Is logic part of philosophy?

Good point - philosophy, then.

(Logan Chipkin)

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.

I would think that the solution comes either from physics or from philosophy that comes out of some physical theory.

(Logan Chipkin)

That’s not a counterargument - so maybe that’s it, after all.

(Logan Chipkin)

I would be amazed if that is why there is something rather than nothing.

(Logan Chipkin)