Are we Machines?

[Robin]

Peter Soderqvist:

The weather is, as you say, a chaotic system. It is not an algorithmic system although we can employ algorithms to solve the systems of equations involved. So the weather is not a Turing computable system even if some mathematical approximation of it might be.

Soderqvist1: it must, because a Turing machine works with bits and can compute every possible physical state, except undecidable propositions, and uncomputable numbers etc, which are abstract phenomena, according to the Turing-Church principle!

There appear to be many contradictory versions of the Turing-Church thesis, but it definitely does not say this. This is the only version that Turing and Church themselves actually endorsed:

Whatever can be calculated by a machine (working on finite data in accordance with a finite program of instructions) is Turing-machine-computable.

So a thing might not be Turing computable, but still decidable.

So if I say that cognitive states are not Turing computable it is not the same as saying it is undecidable. It is not the same as saying it is non-deterministic.

There are machines that are not Turing machines.

I tend to the "mind as machine" side of the debate, I can't see anything about consciousness or free-will that could not be produced mechanically.

See you on Monday

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially all your essay is saying is:

The 'as machine' view assumes A(the brain) causes B(the self).
This assumption is flawed because there could be a C(I'm not sure what to call it?) that causes B filtered through A

Eveything else you plan to show in your other (was it 10?) essays.

Is that the jist of it?

Yes, that's all I'm saying.

Only one section completed so far out of about 10.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/interesting.ian/MindandReality.htm

 

[The Cats Venm]

Only one section completed so far out of about 10.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/interesting.ian/MindandReality.htm

Interesting. (no pun intended)

The button for 'Perception and Reality' is a little different than the others. It doesn't 'invert'.

Other than that, the design is simple and easy to understand. A little plain perhaps, but that is just a consequence of being a personal website.

Might I suggest a different colour than the green? Especially on the scroll bar, it's a little harsh. I like a grey-blue myself, but anything soft will do. Oh, and make the 'scribbley' background tiling (not that important, but it would look a bit nicer). Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

I can't wait to read the rest. Especially the 'Free Will' section, as that debate fascinates me.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting. (no pun intended)

The button for 'Perception and Reality' is a little different than the others. It doesn't 'invert'.

Yeah . . . I know. Easily fixed before I officially launch site.

Other than that, the design is simple and easy to understand. A little plain perhaps, but that is just a consequence of being a personal website.

I was trying to aim at a design which had enough aesthetic appeal so that people wouldn't immediately leave, but at the same time, if people do actually start reading some of the stuff, to make it easily readable.

And I will be splitting the "are we machine" section into about 3 different pages so people don't need to scroll a great deal.

Might I suggest a different colour than the green? Especially on the scroll bar, it's a little harsh.

I chose green because it relaxes. The green scroll bar is part of the visual appeal. It is supposed to entice people not to immediately leave the site, but to do a bit of exploration. I agree though that once people start to read, it will be off-putting.

I find these decisions really difficult. I'm just going by how *I* feel. If I make it the standard dull colour then that would be better in terms of people reading and taking in the ideas. On the other hand, I feel that something unusual like that might make people pause before simple rushing off to another site. But I really don't know what's advisable. I certainly appreciate your input though, and anyone else who has any feelings about this. I believe it can only be seen in Internet Explorer.

I like a grey-blue myself, but anything soft will do. Oh, and make the 'scribbley' background tiling (not that important, but it would look a bit nicer). Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

{shrugs} dunno. The thing to be aware of is that I shouldn't be aiming at what I personally find pleasing, but what other people find pleasing to the eye. So thanks for your opinion here.

I can't wait to read the rest. Especially the 'Free Will' section, as that debate fascinates me.

I have my own ideas on this. I don't know, though, if anyone else has voiced them. So yes, I think you might very well find that section interesting (even if you disagree).

 

[Z]

Well, after reading through what is probably the most sensible post I've ever seen from you, I have only one nit to pick (apologies if someone else already has, but anyway)...

The TV analogy. That's just AWFUL.

You might better use an analogy such as a CAMERA rather than a TELEVISION - that is, something that takes in sensory data and converts it to a kind of signal, which can be stored and examined; yet, even this analogy falls flat.

Really, the best analogy for the human brain is the computer; this is a device which takes in information via sensors (keyboard, mouse, etc), and can use that information based on programs (circuits) to generate outputs. Give the computer faulty input, and it generates faulty output; but the program remains the same. Plus, programming can change over time; programs can be write-protected or erasable; and programs can be re-written to different areas of memory if memory is damaged.

A TV doesn't GENERATE anything except an audio-visual signal, and it only takes in a radio wave signal - which makes it a simple flow-through system, purely one-way in nature, and will continue to generate output predictably based on input.

IF you assume self is the TV program, then the analogy is even worse; in that, the TV is incapable of responding to any stimulus whatsoever, and the program remains unaffected no matter what conditions exist around the TV. Instead, in a computer, if you used the SELF analogy to represent the processor, or perhaps the programming WITHIN the processor, you can then see how the Self acts as a critical part of the processing of input and generation of output. However, I suspect you prefer an analogy in which the Self is external to and independant of the physical system.

However, since no analogy seems to fit this concept acceptably, I'd suggest the reason is your concept is in error, not the availability of analogies.

However, I hope you can find a better analogy than the TV -that one will only be refuted by anyone with a shred of common sense.

 

[Z]

Actually, just thought of one - a two-way radio.
if the Self is the person at one end, then the radio makes a good analogy - it sends AND receives signals, which can be interpreted by the Self, and then acted upon accordingly to change the signal output.

Of course, the basic failure here is that a human, unlike a radio, contains data processors that deal with input, but we can probably set that aside. The other basic failure is, for radio to work, you need two tranceivers...

Of course, for TV to work, you need cameras, transmitters, antennae... and nothing done to the TV can change the program being shown, only its output.

Anyway, consider the alternate analogy - two-way radio.