Write4U
Valued Senior Member
By way of comparison.
The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Volition Or Free Will
- Thread starter Steve Klinko
- Start date
Sherlock Holmes
Registered Member
The assumption seems to be that we can simulate brain functions by an algorithmic machine, by a Turing machine, yet there's no evidence that what goes on in the brain can be simulated by an algorithmic process.
Equating the brain to a digital computer is simply an assumption.
Well computers are wholly deterministic as is mathematics, so again what evidence is there that the brain's functions are deterministic?
If the brain is not deterministic then clearly a computer can never simulate a brain because computers, algorithms are deterministic, a deterministic system cannot behave non-deterministically.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I believe that the brain is considered an algorithmic organ. But the GPT3 is also not a linear Turing machine.
No one is equating anything other than the "hard fact" that the brain (neural network) is fundamentally a biological electrochemical data processor, using mathematical algorithms based on electrochemical laws
Because the brain's hardware also functions deterministically. There is no special sauce, only electrochemical processes. Any differences lie in the processing patterns.
You are stuck in the old computer language mode. Human brains function deterministically but allow for parallel processes that "integrate" or "orchestrate" the available data and allows for the brain to make a "best guess" based on the comparison of stored memory with incoming data.
The new GPT3 design is based on that very principle. The processing functions are deterministic, but the design allows for parallel integration and orchestration of data to allow the unit to make a "best guess", just like humans.
Commands can be made verbally in a general way, just like people talk to each other and the unit will assemble associated data from memory and the internet and make a "best guess" just like people.
Any critique that GPT3 sometimes makes erroneous guesses does not invalidate the underlying processing principles.
People make bad "best guesses" all the time. We tend to overlook that and demand immediate perfection from a deterministic process even if the incoming data is poorly defined by human standards.
I a quiz I would take the GPT3 over a human anytime. For one it has the entire Wikipedia in memory.
What is GPT-3?
What can GPT-3 do?
.....more
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernar...s-it-revolutionizing-artificial-intelligence/
p.s. Max Tegmark made a persuasive argument that there is no extraordinary agent in the human brain. He argued that we can measure the electrochemical processes to very fine detail and if it appeared that there was something more and separate at work, that would also be measurable as quantity, even if we could not pinpoint its quality. But a differential measurement automatically places the phenomenon as an observable quantity and subject to scientific investigation.
I get better what your saying . Because the brain is electrochemical , you calculate its reaction with the environment . And within its self . Its life Write4U . The Brain is not just chemical highway . Life feeds , in the depth of the Earths crust , gets its energy from minerals . Which obviously means that life energy is seperate from periodic energy . Both reside in the same space . Literally .
Life Learns . Adapts , Thinks . The periodic table does None of this . Understand ?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree with this summation.
IMO, the parallel processing of different bits of data is by purely deterministic electrochemical activity and that's what makes it mathematically reliable. The difficulty lies in the self-referential integration, assembly, and orchestration of many bits of data into a cohesive and comprehensive whole, that may present several potential choices, based on prior experience and memory, and is responsible for different people arriving at different conclusions, based on the same shared data.
This is why I really like Anil Seth's use of the terms "best guess" and "controlled hallucination", which identify the processing of emergent choices that are available. Hence we can form and choose between Plan A and Plan B as possible alternate actions to a problem with several potential solutions.
Seth: "When we agree on our best guesses, we call that reality" (by consensus).
But it seems that the brain always makes its "best guess" before triggering specific action. If it does not (is unable), we freeze mentally and become "undecided". This is apparent in the game of golf, where the player may become unable to execute a tricky putt and balks several times before executing and then usually missing that specific putt, due to lack of confidence.
Last edited:
And Include Psychology .
And don't forget the rest of my post#84
. Life feeds , in the depth of the Earths crust , gets its energy from minerals . Which obviously means that life energy is seperate from periodic energy . Both reside in the same space . Literally .
Life Learns . Adapts , Thinks . The periodic table does None of this .
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yes, and proves that conscious thought is an emergent phenomenon and not intrinsic to the universe.
The universe itself exhibits a quasi-intelligent mathematical self-referential basis for all interactions.
to your first statement ; What Universe ? Define Universe .
To your second statement ; explain with more clarity .
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I disagree with that conclusion.
I propose that rather than trying to separate life energy and mineral (periodic) energy, actually proves abiogenesis, where mineral energy forms complex biochemical patterns, with emergent biological living properties. No Magic!
Inotherwords Life is already there waiting to be released . Just needs the right environment to begin manifestation .
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
The spacetime geometry and its chemical constituents (periodic table).
Universal constants are mathematical constructs. That's what makes them constant. There is no further clarification necessary. Mathematical constants are sufficient to explain how the universe operates. True, there are some gaps in human knowledge, but that's not the fault of the universe.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yea, you can put it that way.
Personally, I prefer to use the more neutral definition of "potential for life".
Potential = A latent excellence that may become reality
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
BE AWARE: The OP "Steve Klinko" is a bizarre and prolific "woo-woo" with questionable motives who repeatedly pastes identical copies of the same unscientific nonsense across the internet and then dishonestly dips and dodges whenever his nonsense is questioned. Although he may believe in his nonsense, Steve Klinko is NOT a good faith poster.
I recognized the name the second I saw the title of the thread because he never, ever uses an alias. There is a very specific reason for that: he is trying to "make a name for himself" and sell something. In either case, Steve Klinko's bullshit would still be recognized a mile away. Here are some examples of the same, identical bullshit in this thread posted elsewhere:
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=32891
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=32996
https://www.scienceforums.net/profile/142909-steveklinko/content/?all_activity=1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/discussions/692/steveklinko
Look familiar, anybody? There are even more examples on websites whose purpose is completely unrelated to the bullshit in question. Wherever allowed (but sometimes even if not) Steve Klinko makes sure to plug a link to his website, which looks like some garbage you would find on geocities in the early 2000s and which he uses to sell his embarrassingly stupid t-shirts.
Worse, Steve Klinko bots. Or at least he appears to bot. Here is Steve Klinko spamming a link to his website on Twitter what seems like 24/7:
I suppose it is remotely possible that he is awake to do this all day, every day -- but who knows?
I see some people in this thread have already replied to Steve Klinko. That is fine; you can give him the benefit of the doubt if you wish, but I strongly suggest sparing yourself the effort henceforward. He is someone who is here to "build his brand" and make money off of it. He is not someone who is an interested in an honest exchange of ideas. He is not someone who is willing to have his mind changed. He is not someone who cares if you successfully negate his bullshit. He is not someone who cares what you think. He is not here for a serious discussion at all... so why bother?
I recognized the name the second I saw the title of the thread because he never, ever uses an alias. There is a very specific reason for that: he is trying to "make a name for himself" and sell something. In either case, Steve Klinko's bullshit would still be recognized a mile away. Here are some examples of the same, identical bullshit in this thread posted elsewhere:
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=32891
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=32996
https://www.scienceforums.net/profile/142909-steveklinko/content/?all_activity=1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/discussions/692/steveklinko
Look familiar, anybody? There are even more examples on websites whose purpose is completely unrelated to the bullshit in question. Wherever allowed (but sometimes even if not) Steve Klinko makes sure to plug a link to his website, which looks like some garbage you would find on geocities in the early 2000s and which he uses to sell his embarrassingly stupid t-shirts.
Worse, Steve Klinko bots. Or at least he appears to bot. Here is Steve Klinko spamming a link to his website on Twitter what seems like 24/7:
I suppose it is remotely possible that he is awake to do this all day, every day -- but who knows?
I see some people in this thread have already replied to Steve Klinko. That is fine; you can give him the benefit of the doubt if you wish, but I strongly suggest sparing yourself the effort henceforward. He is someone who is here to "build his brand" and make money off of it. He is not someone who is an interested in an honest exchange of ideas. He is not someone who is willing to have his mind changed. He is not someone who cares if you successfully negate his bullshit. He is not someone who cares what you think. He is not here for a serious discussion at all... so why bother?
BE AWARE: The OP "Steve Klinko" is a bizarre and prolific "woo-woo" with questionable motives who repeatedly pastes identical copies of the same unscientific nonsense across the internet and then dishonestly dips and dodges whenever his nonsense is questioned. Although he may believe in his nonsense, Steve Klinko is NOT a good faith poster.
I recognized the name the second I saw the title of the thread because he never, ever uses an alias. There is a very specific reason for that: he is trying to "make a name for himself" and sell something. In either case, Steve Klinko's bullshit would still be recognized a mile away. Here are some examples of the same, identical bullshit in this thread posted elsewhere:
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=32891
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=32996
https://www.scienceforums.net/profile/142909-steveklinko/content/?all_activity=1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/discussions/692/steveklinko
Look familiar, anybody? There are even more examples on websites whose purpose is completely unrelated to the bullshit in question. Wherever allowed (but sometimes even if not) Steve Klinko makes sure to plug a link to his website, which looks like some garbage you would find on geocities in the early 2000s and which he uses to sell his embarrassingly stupid t-shirts.
Worse, Steve Klinko bots. Or at least he appears to bot. Here is Steve Klinko spamming a link to his website on Twitter what seems like 24/7:
I suppose it is remotely possible that he is awake to do this all day, every day -- but who knows?
I see some people in this thread have already replied to Steve Klinko. That is fine; you can give him the benefit of the doubt if you wish, but I strongly suggest sparing yourself the effort henceforward. He is someone who is here to "build his brand" and make money off of it. He is not someone who is an interested in an honest exchange of ideas. He is not someone who is willing to have his mind changed. He is not someone who cares if you successfully negate his bullshit. He is not someone who cares what you think. He is not here for a serious discussion at all... so why bother?
Steven J. Klinko your response to this post .
Sherlock Holmes
Registered Member
GPT3 is software, and requires a TM in order to run, it is an algorithm, I've never heard of a "linear Turing machine" either, what is that?
Well we have no real idea what neuron does or how it does what it does, the claim that it is a mechanism that can be wholly represented by an algorithm is a belief that's all it is.
How do you know our brains are deterministic? You've said this several times but this too is just a belief.
Terms like "integrate" and "orchestrate" do not have any meaning within the context of algorithms or Turing machines - understand this: Turing machines are represented by two broad concepts - STATES and ACTIONS that's it, that's all there is, a simple algorithm (like how to add two 8 bit binary numbers) may have a few states and a few actions whereas a complex algorithm (like to how to compute the square root of an 8 bit binary number) will have more states and more actions but that's the only difference, all computers ultimately have is STATES and ACTIONS.
There is no "orchestrate" except as a metaphor in your mind.
GPT3 is just software, it cannot be assumed to represent what the brain does or how the brain does it, again why do you believe the brain is deterministic because if it isn't then a computer can never do what a brain can do.
The brain is made of atoms, so are cars does that mean the human brain functions in a way that is approx equivalent to a car? The presence of electrical currents in the brain does not mean that therefore the brain functions algorithmically.
There is so much wishy washy reasoning and vague poorly defined claims here that I cannot for one second take any of this as relevant at all to brains.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
What's the difference between a bit and a qubit?
A self-driving car?
And it is not the presence of electrical currents that create consciousness, it is the processing of data the electrochemical bits represent.
The difference between a brain and a computer lies in the chemical reactions the electric currents trigger. It is the chemical reactions that create the emotional awareness. (see Empathy)
I am merely citing the work of scientists engaged in the research of the subject.
What I post is my fundamental agreement and my own reasoning of why I accept their interpretation. This is why I always accompany my posts with links to the relevant science.
I do not claim to have any answers over and above the current state of the science.
Consider this basic fact that the brain has two separate functioning parts. One part is our "conscious" brain which allows us to "observe" our exterior environment, i.e. Exteroception.
And one part which is sub-conscious and only functions as an internal "control" mechanism (homeostasis) of keeping the body's internal electrochemical processes in balance, i.e. Interoception.
It is this subconscious part of the brain that keeps us alive, not the conscious part. (Anil Seth)
When anesthetics are used they affect only the exteroceptive part of the brain, while the interoceptive part remains functional. (Hameroff). I find that absolutely fascinating. Where does that separation occur and is it measurable (quantifiable)?
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
The electrochemical processes are deterministic. It is our "best guess" that is a result of cognitive memories that is the variable component.
You accuse me of simplification, yet you present the most simple example when you compare the human brain with a computer.
If you don't know what is meant by some of the terms I use, then I refer you to the links where the scientist use these terms and explain their reason for that specific use.
Descartes' "brain in a vat" demonstrated that the brain makes only a "best guess" of what it experiences.
The brain does not run on purely electric impulses. It runs on electrochemical data processes, where the chemistry provides the emotional responses, which trigger the physiological motor actions. Somehow, between the two, a self-referential process produces a conscious awareness of the data being processed. It is the biological electrochemical aspect of living organisms that allows for the emergence of experiential abilities.
"You don't need to be intelligent to feel pain, but you probably do have to be alive" (Anil Seth)
Last edited:
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
Don't hold your breath, LOL.
Sherlock Holmes
Registered Member
I am self aware but software cannot be self aware, no Turing machine can be self aware because all they have are states and actions, state machines offer no prospect of self awareness.
What would be, indeed what could be, the difference between a conscious Turing machine and an unconscious Turing machine?
This is the crux of the issue.