Philosophy Now Forum

Apostolos Syropoulos goes back to BASICs to consider whether the human brain is a computer.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/142/The_Limits_of_Computation

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:09 pm Apostolos Syropoulos goes back to BASICs to consider whether the human brain is a computer.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/142/Th ... omputation

In my impression, something is computable if it is possible to build an algorithm or sets of algorithms that produce a model of a certain aspect of reality.

Queries on the state of the model according to the values ​​of certain variables will produce specific data on the model.

The model of the optimal route between cities will depend solely on patience.

For a finite number of cities, the model is computable. The desirable objective is not to construct the optimal route model but to find a general relationship (a pattern) that relates the increase in the number of cities with the determination of the optimal route.


The Halting Problem appears to be a topological issue. But for now it would be beyond the reach of our resources. It seems to me equivalent to solving an extremely complex maze. Somehow one must be able to anticipate which path will make us cyclically retrace our steps indefinitely.

With the Chinese Room it is argued that only human beings recognize meanings and that this implies the impossibility of constructing entities with consciousness. That consciousness is something of a different nature from reality.

For me this is wrong and this error is produced by supposing that language has the possibility of transmitting meanings to the receiver that did not exist in him before that communication.

It is not true that humans conceptualize from scratch with just an unknown symbol.

The understanding in this article is about as dated as the use of BASIC, probably speaks to the age of the author.

In 1969 Konrad Zuse proclaimed that the whole universe is a cellular automaton – a computing device. But if we do not know all the laws of the universe, and, consequently, have no idea what the ultimate computing device is, then how can we say that the universe is a cellular automaton?

The answer to this "conundrum" lies not in the lack of knowledge of the rules of the universe, but in the a priori assumption that the universe works based on rules.

What are "rules"? Are rules ontic or epistemic artefacts? Rules are artefacts of grammar. Formal grammar. Mathematics.

And so it follows by definition that IF the universe operates on rules THEN the universe is a Turing machine.

It also follows by induction: ALL laws of physics are Mathematical. Mathematics is a Formal language. Turing machines are formal language recognisers. If the universe is physical, and Mathematics captures physics then the universe is a Turing machine.

And since the Curry-howard correspondence the claim "The Universe is cellular automaton" is equivalent to the claim "The Universe is Logical". If you reject one, you have to reject the other.

Following the American philosopher John Searle, one might say that the mind is a biological machine, but that it does not operate as a symbol manipulation device as a Turing machine does. Searle is famous for his ‘Chinese Room’ argument, which aimed to show that the human mind is more than a symbol manipulator. Roughly, the argument is that someone who does not speak Chinese can perfectly answer questions in Chinese by just manipulating symbols in Chinese (that is, Chinese words) according to a big book of rules. However, there is no understanding of Chinese involved: the operator doesn’t know what the symbols mean

Searle is a misguided fool. He attacks blind symbol manipulation, but his entire argument rests upon the meaning of the symbol "understanding".

Does the person making; or agreeing with the argument understand what the symbol "understanding" means?

So the universe follows rules, and the rules are eventually mathematics. And you think this is a new idea? In fact this is dated and probably speaks about your own age! Mathematics is a language that we use it to describe the world around us. It is not the universe or anything else! We are not abstractions! Also, do not forget that a physical system is not a formal system. Finally, when you call Searl a fool, it is obvious who is the fool. I suggest you to behave a bit!