Consciousness requires something more than functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine?

[Impenitent]

and those humans who cannot use language must not be conscious...

-Imp

Humor, I assume.

have you ever met anyone with autism?

-Imp

[commonsense]

and those humans who cannot use language must not be conscious...

-Imp

Humor, I assume.

have you ever met anyone with autism?

-Imp

No. Must they not be conscious?

[Skepdick]

OP is still wrong, debate goes on as to whether human brains are Turing machines or not. Consciousness doesn’t need something more, there is plenty of evidence to suggest it’s just brain activity and none for the opposite.

Turing machines are a shitty model of computation. There' no need to debate it - brains are not Turing machines.

Brains can do concurrent computations - Turing Machines cannot.
Brains can perform certain computations in finite time while Turing machines cannot do it even in infinite time.

[Skepdick]

Again you’re really not proving a mind exists just asserting there is one. Like I said we don’t really have evidence for it.

You do understand that "existence proofs" are an ill-defined notion outside of the paradigm of mathematics, right?

And the fact that you are speaking about proofs and evidence in the same sentence is all the evidence necessary that you speak mindlessly while confusing the different paradigms of thought.

The fact that humans can reify and replicate aspects of human thinking into machines which bear no physical semblance to a human brain is all the evidence nessessary that minds exist.

The software I write encodes my intentions in matter.

[Darkneos]

OP is still wrong, debate goes on as to whether human brains are Turing machines or not. Consciousness doesn’t need something more, there is plenty of evidence to suggest it’s just brain activity and none for the opposite.

Turing machines are a shitty model of computation. There' no need to debate it - brains are not Turing machines.

Brains can do concurrent computations - Turing Machines cannot.
Brains can perform certain computations in finite time while Turing machines cannot do it even in infinite time.

Wrong

[Darkneos]

Again you’re really not proving a mind exists just asserting there is one. Like I said we don’t really have evidence for it.

You do understand that "existence proofs" are an ill-defined notion outside of the paradigm of mathematics, right?

And the fact that you are speaking about proofs and evidence in the same sentence is all the evidence necessary that you speak mindlessly while confusing the different paradigms of thought.

The fact that humans can reify and replicate aspects of human thinking into machines which bear no physical semblance to a human brain is all the evidence nessessary that minds exist.

The software I write encodes my intentions in matter.

Also wrong

[Skepdick]

OP is still wrong, debate goes on as to whether human brains are Turing machines or not. Consciousness doesn’t need something more, there is plenty of evidence to suggest it’s just brain activity and none for the opposite.

Turing machines are a shitty model of computation. There' no need to debate it - brains are not Turing machines.

Brains can do concurrent computations - Turing Machines cannot.
Brains can perform certain computations in finite time while Turing machines cannot do it even in infinite time.

Wrong

Q.E.D

Turing machines can't assert "right" or "wrong".

Which necessarily means you are wrong about me being wrong.

[Darkneos]

Humor, I assume.

have you ever met anyone with autism?

-Imp

No. Must they not be conscious?

Swing and a miss

[Darkneos]

Turing machines are a shitty model of computation. There' no need to debate it - brains are not Turing machines.

Brains can do concurrent computations - Turing Machines cannot.
Brains can perform certain computations in finite time while Turing machines cannot do it even in infinite time.

Wrong

Q.E.D

Turing machines can't assert "right" or "wrong".

Wrong.

[Skepdick]

Again you’re really not proving a mind exists just asserting there is one. Like I said we don’t really have evidence for it.

You do understand that "existence proofs" are an ill-defined notion outside of the paradigm of mathematics, right?

And the fact that you are speaking about proofs and evidence in the same sentence is all the evidence necessary that you speak mindlessly while confusing the different paradigms of thought.

The fact that humans can reify and replicate aspects of human thinking into machines which bear no physical semblance to a human brain is all the evidence nessessary that minds exist.

The software I write encodes my intentions in matter.

Also wrong

Wrong about me being wrong. Twice now.

[Skepdick]

Wrong

Q.E.D

Turing machines can't assert "right" or "wrong".

Wrong.

Make that 3 times.

[Darkneos]

Q.E.D

Turing machines can't assert "right" or "wrong".

Wrong.

Make that 3 times.

Wrong again.

[Skepdick]

Wrong.

Make that 3 times.

Wrong again.

Produce the algorithm which runs on a Turing Machine and determines that I am "wrong" and consider this settled...

Otherwise that's the 4th time you are wrong about me being wrong.

[Darkneos]

Make that 3 times.

Wrong again.

Produce the algorithm which runs on a Turing Machine and determines that I am "wrong" and consider this settled...

Otherwise that's the 4th time you are wrong about be being wrong.

You’re just wrong dude.

[Skepdick]

Wrong again.

Produce the algorithm which runs on a Turing Machine and determines that I am "wrong" and consider this settled...

Otherwise that's the 4th time you are wrong about be being wrong.

You’re just wrong dude.

You are just wrong about me being wrong dude.