Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Computational Theory of Mind (2015)

plato.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 82 posts

Re: The Computational Theory of Mind (2015)

#21

Post by randomImmigrant »

hexer292 wrote: post #20
randomImmigrant wrote: post #19

I believe machines could be made that think. But not purely digital ones. The brain most certainly isn’t a thinking machine precisely because it doesn’t have the luxury of unlimited time. Its design is not based on executing best algorithms, but rather finding good enough solutions among many time constrained but interlinked signal cascades. The brain and body instead construct time, a cohesive internal one,from the…

I'm probably way off the mark here, but my instinct tells me there's nothing intrinsic about the human condition that makes it the exclusive vessel of thought. It is theoretically possible, after all, to simulate a human brain at a subatomic level. Sure, the complexity is absurd and interface required to measure it seems far fetched, but technically there's no restriction. Because of this I believe what we know as "t…

Made some updates to my post but glad you brought up simulation: today when we simulate the brain, at whatever resolution, we do so in digital systems that have the Von Neumann bottleneck. Processing and memory are separated. In humans and all of biology, these things overlap instead. And that’s where simulations ultimately fail. They are out of step with real time in a way biology is not, because biology is attuned to the environment, and down to the molecular level, is actually enacting a physical process distributed across many cells that track the periodicities in various external signals, then anticipate them.

Re: The Computational Theory of Mind (2015)

#23

Post by rustcleaner »

hexer292 wrote: post #20
randomImmigrant wrote: post #19

I believe machines could be made that think. But not purely digital ones. The brain most certainly isn’t a thinking machine precisely because it doesn’t have the luxury of unlimited time. Its design is not based on executing best algorithms, but rather finding good enough solutions among many time constrained but interlinked signal cascades. The brain and body instead construct time, a cohesive internal one,from the…

I'm probably way off the mark here, but my instinct tells me there's nothing intrinsic about the human condition that makes it the exclusive vessel of thought. It is theoretically possible, after all, to simulate a human brain at a subatomic level. Sure, the complexity is absurd and interface required to measure it seems far fetched, but technically there's no restriction. Because of this I believe what we know as "t…

>I'm probably way off the mark here, but my instinct tells me there's nothing intrinsic about the human condition that makes it the exclusive vessel of thought.

I'm in your boat. Molecular biology looks quite analogous to something like Conway's Game of Life, but a particle automaton with freedom in 3D space rather than cells in a fixed 2D aetheric grid.

Conway's Game of Life is Turing complete, the fundamental laws/algorithms are simple. Per Wolfram (NKS), you don't need complex algorithms in order to exhibit complex behavior. GoL is just four rules and a[n infinite] grid. Wolfram's automata are simpler.

I will go even further out 'there' and state that we are the equivalent to Greek "city-gods" which arise out of the polity/demos composing them, except our polities are little biological von Neumann machines acting in concert to emerge us in their aggregate. What most people think of as 'god' being some top-down omniscient/omnipotent creator entity, I think is wrong and reverses the true heirarchy of nature. The fabric of spacetime, the quantum field, or whatever emerges it from a lower level with its fixed simple rules, is the primary force driving the universe's [and our] existence. If there are gods, we are categorically much closer to them in form than the pious fanatics say!

(Disclosure: I am petulantly Atheist.)

Re: The Computational Theory of Mind (2015)

#25

Post by RussianBot9580 »

randomImmigrant wrote: post #19

I believe machines could be made that think. But not purely digital ones. The brain most certainly isn’t a thinking machine precisely because it doesn’t have the luxury of unlimited time. Its design is not based on executing best algorithms, but rather finding good enough solutions among many time constrained but interlinked signal cascades. The brain and body instead construct time, a cohesive internal one,from the…

This is basically Christian apologetics. We've collectively thought we were special for so long that must now go through increasingly complex mental gymnastics to prove to ourselves that we are somehow uniquely sentient, despite increasing evidence to the contrary.

Re: The Computational Theory of Mind (2015)

#26

Post by defrost »

randomImmigrant wrote: post #21
hexer292 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably way off the mark here, but my instinct tells me there's nothing intrinsic about the human condition that makes it the exclusive vessel of thought. It is theoretically possible, after all, to simulate a human brain at a subatomic level. Sure, the complexity is absurd and interface required to measure it seems far fetched, but technically there's no restriction. Because of this I believe what we know as "t…

Made some updates to my post but glad you brought up simulation: today when we simulate the brain, at whatever resolution, we do so in digital systems that have the Von Neumann bottleneck. Processing and memory are separated. In humans and all of biology, these things overlap instead. And that’s where simulations ultimately fail. They are out of step with real time in a way biology is not, because biology is attuned…

Does Danny Hillis' Connection Machine have a von Neumann bottleneck? Do transputer arrays separate processing and memory?

When custom silicon is made to speed up LLM behaviour doesn't that operate fully parallel with mixed memory and processing?

When real time remote sensing signal processing pipelines are built isn't it possible to parallel in the kinds of filters that "anticipate" the expected future (and highlight deviations from the expected).

Re: The Computational Theory of Mind (2015)

#27

Post by esikich »

hexer292 wrote: post #20
randomImmigrant wrote: post #19

I believe machines could be made that think. But not purely digital ones. The brain most certainly isn’t a thinking machine precisely because it doesn’t have the luxury of unlimited time. Its design is not based on executing best algorithms, but rather finding good enough solutions among many time constrained but interlinked signal cascades. The brain and body instead construct time, a cohesive internal one,from the…

I'm probably way off the mark here, but my instinct tells me there's nothing intrinsic about the human condition that makes it the exclusive vessel of thought. It is theoretically possible, after all, to simulate a human brain at a subatomic level. Sure, the complexity is absurd and interface required to measure it seems far fetched, but technically there's no restriction. Because of this I believe what we know as "t…

You might like this. Maybe math is existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes...

Re: The Computational Theory of Mind (2015)

#28

Post by DiscourseFan »

randomImmigrant wrote: post #19

I believe machines could be made that think. But not purely digital ones. The brain most certainly isn’t a thinking machine precisely because it doesn’t have the luxury of unlimited time. Its design is not based on executing best algorithms, but rather finding good enough solutions among many time constrained but interlinked signal cascades. The brain and body instead construct time, a cohesive internal one,from the…

Alright Heidegger

Re: The Computational Theory of Mind (2015)

#29

Post by randomImmigrant »

RussianBot9580 wrote: post #25
randomImmigrant wrote: post #19

I believe machines could be made that think. But not purely digital ones. The brain most certainly isn’t a thinking machine precisely because it doesn’t have the luxury of unlimited time. Its design is not based on executing best algorithms, but rather finding good enough solutions among many time constrained but interlinked signal cascades. The brain and body instead construct time, a cohesive internal one,from the…

This is basically Christian apologetics. We've collectively thought we were special for so long that must now go through increasingly complex mental gymnastics to prove to ourselves that we are somehow uniquely sentient, despite increasing evidence to the contrary.

This is neuroscience. I don't give a damn about Christianity. And nothing here says humans are special. Only that biology broadly is different than computing.

Re: The Computational Theory of Mind (2015)

#30

Post by randomImmigrant »

defrost wrote: post #26
randomImmigrant wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Made some updates to my post but glad you brought up simulation: today when we simulate the brain, at whatever resolution, we do so in digital systems that have the Von Neumann bottleneck. Processing and memory are separated. In humans and all of biology, these things overlap instead. And that’s where simulations ultimately fail. They are out of step with real time in a way biology is not, because biology is attuned…

Does Danny Hillis' Connection Machine have a von Neumann bottleneck? Do transputer arrays separate processing and memory? When custom silicon is made to speed up LLM behaviour doesn't that operate fully parallel with mixed memory and processing? When real time remote sensing signal processing pipelines are built isn't it possible to parallel in the kinds of filters that "anticipate" the expected future (and highlight…

Yes... when these things are done, we can talk. Which is why I said "I believe machines could be made that think". They can be. We just haven't done it yet.
Post reply on HN