Dennis Hackethal
Member since June 2024
Activity
#565·Nick Willmott, about 1 year agoYou'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?
the the title of the page
Minor quibble but there’s a double “the”. Consider revising your idea to fix this typo.
#564·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoYes, 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?
@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.
#565·Nick Willmott, about 1 year agoYou'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?
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.
#565·Nick Willmott, about 1 year agoYou'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?
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?
#572·Nick Willmott, about 1 year agoI'm not objecting to the word computer per se, I just don't think a deflationary sense of the word is of any interest for comparision to the brain. The word could be of use to help illuminate what the brain is (and is not), but the comparison I sense would have to be with something more like a general purpose computer / universal computing device.
It’s not a comparison. The brain literally is a computer.
#565·Nick Willmott, about 1 year agoYou'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?
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.
#570·Ante Škugor, about 1 year agoPeople 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.
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.
Fix reference to idea
6 unchanged lines collapsedAnd yes, "not the kind of computer people traditionally think of when they hear the term, like a laptop or desktop," as Dennis statesbelow.↵ ↵ But,in #498.↵ ↵ But, the term 'computer' implies deterministic connotations.6 unchanged lines collapsed
#556·Tom Nassis, about 1 year agoYes, 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?
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.
#553·Tom Nassis, about 1 year agoI know what you mean, but Veritula unavoidably facilitates public (i.e. social) interactions, no? Of a certain kind, to be clear. Ideas, ideas, ideas.
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 isnot.not.↵ ↵ In a Deutschian understanding, ‘person’ and ‘mind’ are synonymous. So a person isn’t a computer, either. A person is also a program.
#556·Tom Nassis, about 1 year agoYes, 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?
The mind is a computer.
No, the mind is a program. A computer is a physical object; the mind is not.
#548·Nick Willmott, about 1 year agoI'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.
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.#544·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoInexplicit criticism is good, maybe you can make it explicit someday and we can continue.
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)
#543·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoYes, it should. I am left with no counterargument but a mild sense of dissatisfaction.
(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)
#541·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoYou mean to the question of existence, or in general? Cuz in general I’d think of it as a criticism.
(Logan Chipkin)
To the question of existence.
#540·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoSince you agree (#539) that logic is part of philosophy, the law of the excluded middle should satisfy you as a philosophical answer, no?
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?
#536·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoDoesn’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.
Good point - philosophy, then.
(Logan Chipkin)
#535·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoI would think that the solution comes either from physics or from philosophy that comes out of some physical theory.
(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.
#532·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoIf non-existence is to mean anything at all, I think that’s it, yes.
I would think that the solution comes either from physics or from philosophy that comes out of some physical theory.
(Logan Chipkin)