Search Ideas

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.

Think we're going to get bogged down in unclear relationships to tackle this sorry...
If anything that processes information is a computer, do all computers have programs?

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.

@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?"

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?

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.👍

✅

✅

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.

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?