# Computational Theory of Mind

## Do you ascribe to the computational theory of mind?   10 members have voted

1. ### 1. Do you ascribe to the computational theory of mind?

• Yes
• No, I think consciousness is non-computable but still explained by natural (e.g. quantum) processes
• No, I think consciousness is supernatural
• Dur dee durr

## Recommended Posts

I don't see any way that it could exist in a physical sense though.

Well, hard determinism doesn't exist in a physical sense either And as per one of the forum's own staff, "a dimension isn't an object" that you can pick up or measure directly, but that doesn't mean time and length don't exist? The same type of property could be true with components of mind, so it's probably in the middle such that a mind can have some type of choice but will always have something affecting it.

Edited by SamBridge

• Replies 94
• Created

#### Popular Days

When I first started working on AI, I only put the first unit to emerge in the output as opposed to adding all of the units with equal likelihood. The reason I did that is because it was way more grammatical that way. Length is absolutely essential because you need to stop the recognition of patterns when the length of the point of interest + the next point of interest is equal to 0. Time is just a label for a particular object, and that object is best suited as a tuple. A tuple contains all possible objects within it, and by making time a tuple, the program is WAY more efficient than using a dictionary, or even worse, a string.

You need to take dispositions into account as well so the program can specialize it's output so it's not only context sensitive, but it has an attitude as well. That's the main reason for my logic that time is a tuple. I'm not working on the output aspect of AI yet though, and I think that it won't be necessary for the purposes of this business. I do a lot of machine learning though.

##### Share on other sites

When I first started working on AI, I only put the first unit to emerge in the output as opposed to adding all of the units with equal likelihood. The reason I did that is because it was way more grammatical that way. Length is absolutely essential because you need to stop the recognition of patterns when the length of the point of interest + the next point of interest is equal to 0. Time is just a label for a particular object, and that object is best suited as a tuple. A tuple contains all possible objects within it, and by making time a tuple, the program is WAY more efficient than using a dictionary, or even worse, a string.

You need to take dispositions into account as well so the program can specialize it's output so it's not only context sensitive, but it has an attitude as well. That's the main reason for my logic that time is a tuple. I'm not working on the output aspect of AI yet though, and I think that it won't be necessary for the purposes of this business. I do a lot of machine learning though.

Yeah length is essential, but the dimensions that we use to define it aren't tangible. Couldn't a similar phenomena happen with the mind even if there wasn't the physical availability of something like free-will? Couldn't it just be an inherent property that physical matter emulates the patterns of as matter appears to with other mathematically defined movements?

Edited by SamBridge
##### Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you're saying. Knowledge and length are essential, free will is just a fantasy.

I don't get why people are holding on to the belief in freedom so dearly, especially if they claim to be scientists. I thought this issue was settled back in 2009.

It's not the job of a scientist to ponder freedom; I think it should be a toy discussion amongst philosophy students.

##### Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you're saying. Knowledge and length are essential, free will is just a fantasy.

I don't get why people are holding on to the belief in freedom so dearly, especially if they claim to be scientists. I thought this issue was settled back in 2009.

Because it doesn't make sense to say you don't have any type of free will when you have the choice to decide if you have free-will or not. CMT is based on everything being observable in terms of deterministic electrical patterns, and aside from the problems I already pointed out, something like a dimension that is supposedly "used" to measure things isn't a physical object you can touch, and neither are equations themselves. Even in a deterministic universe, one could have "the potential to desire" something outside of what is happening, but have no control over outcomes that are observed by other frames. Nothing about one of the most complex aspects of our fundamental existence is "settled." Every generation likes to look back at history and say they're ahead and have everything figure out, but if anyone was ever really ahead, we wouldn't have so many fundamental changes.

Edited by SamBridge
##### Share on other sites

CMT is not about "electrical patterns". Pattern recognition is a fundamental tautology of the theory and I don't think that that will be disproved, not now, not ever. Pattern recognition is quantum IMO, it happens instantaneously across every possible instance of any particular pattern. What you are thinking right now is also being thought by you, who is approximately 11 trillion light years away, and the next you who is 11 trillion light years away from that. Say hello to everyone in the universe right now and see what you think. It could be a very enlightening experience, or you may not think of it as enlightening at all. When I first thought, "holy crap, I could be talking to everyone in the universe right now", I heard about 20 or so "WHAT!?!?"s simultaneously. It was epic to say the least. IMO, dimensions don't exist. Nothing but points of interest exist. I don't think I'm wrong on that one, and you'd have to be pretty genius to make me think otherwise. You can't touch anything either by the way. You can get close, but you'll never quite touch anything. Equations, at best, point you in a direction that has been, or at least will be, useful. Equations help us make money and have a stable job. They give us something interesting to do. You can have the potential to desire anything you want, but let's be realistic, I'm not about to sprout wings and fly south. I have no control, absolutely none, and I've come to terms with that. It doesn't stop me from wanting to be a better person, but all I can do is wait until the time is right, for anything, at any moment.

##### Share on other sites

CMT is not about "electrical patterns".

But it is about putting all observed results into terms of observable synaptic patterns, it's almost synonymous.

Pattern recognition is quantum IMO, it happens instantaneously across every possible instance of any particular pattern.

A "correlation" is by nature always true, but classically a person or computer never receives new information faster than light.

What you are thinking right now is also being thought by you, who is approximately 11 trillion light years away

No idea where you got the evidence for that.

Say hello to everyone in the universe right now and see what you think. It could be a very enlightening experience,

Yeah, I don't think that's happened at any point in time.

Nothing but points of interest exist.

So where'd the universe come from when there was no known possible "point of interest" around? I like to think the moon is there even when I'm not looking at it.

You can't touch anything either by the way.

You're right, because people measure the physical force of electromagnetic repulsion.

and you'd have to be pretty genius to make me think otherwise.

At this point I'm surprised to say I'd have to be more like a fanatic than a genius of anything.

I'm not about to sprout wings and fly south.

Because that particular event is highly unlikely.

It doesn't stop me from wanting to be a better person,

Why want when the universe will do it for y...oh, you can't predict the universe will do it for you, you don't know what it's going to do, guess you'll have to decide for yourself if you're trying to be a good person.

Edited by SamBridge
##### Share on other sites

I'm saying that information is identified faster than the speed of light.

Statistics shows that in order to come across this same exact pattern that we call earth, we would have to travel approximately 11 trillion light years to get there, but if you "die" and come back to life 11 trillion light years away, if you woke up and nothing has changed or happened, then you traveled 11 trillion light years in a single moment.

I'm not going to get into how the universe came around, all I know is that it requires input in order to have length.

Forgive me for not making good quotations, but, are you a fanatic? What's your expertise? Mine is computational mind. Philosophy and Computational linguistics more particularly though.

The universe may cause me to want something, but the real question is who am I?.

Edited by Popcorn Sutton
##### Share on other sites

I'm saying that information is identified faster than the speed of light.

Information cannot propagate to where it already exists, which is why no information transfer happens faster than light in a correlation.

Statistics shows that in order to come across this same exact pattern that we call earth, we would have to travel approximately 11 trillion light years to get there, but if you "die" and come back to life 11 trillion light years away, if you woke up and nothing has changed or happened, then you traveled 11 trillion light years in a single moment.

Not sure about the specifics on that sort of mind transfer but it could just be a pure coincidence, like a clone. Why wouldn't aliens have died and reported coming back to life here anyway?

Forgive me for not making good quotations, but, are you a fanatic? What's your expertise? Mine is computational mind. Philosophy and Computational linguistics more particularly though.

I was pointing out that you seem to have a spontaneous breakdown in cohesive reasoning while avoiding my points which greatly contrasts to the manner you spoke in before. I was implying you were acting as a sort of "fanatic."

The universe may cause me to want something, but the real question is who am I?.

Apparently as people seem to measure themselves having the capacity to do so, that's for you to decide.

Edited by SamBridge
##### Share on other sites

Why wouldn't aliens have died and reported coming back to life here anyway?

I don't get it.

I was pointing out that you seem to have a spontaneous breakdown in cohesive reasoning while avoiding my points which greatly contrasts to the manner you spoke in before. I was implying you were acting as a sort of "fanatic."

Can you clarify on this? I'll admit that I am a fanatic on this front, but I don't fantasize without logic and experience.

Apparently as people seem to measure themselves having the capacity to do so, that's for you to decide.

That was wayy philosophical on my part and I have to apologize.

Since I have some time to kill, I'm going to review the first few pages of this thread.

##### Share on other sites

Can you clarify on this? I'll admit that I am a fanatic on this front, but I don't fantasize without logic and experience.

You broke into spouting random stuff that didn't actually cohere to established facts.

Since I have some time to kill, I'm going to review the first few pages of this thread.

You didn't do that already? A lot of debate could have been avoided if you did.

##### Share on other sites

You can post any equation you want, but as with any mathematical model that is applied to the universe, it's just a matter of if whether or not or how big the difference between that equation and any given relevant physical observation and if it is 0 or greater, or an infinite amount of nines after 99%, thus proving they are the same, which as per your liking I suppose I can model with arithmetic: Expr1 - Expr2 = 0, ---> Expr1 = Expr2, or "the difference between expression one and expression two is zero, therefore expression one equals expression two."

But we still have further to go as I said, we'll always have further to go when we try and boil everything down to just functions as ordered pairs. As long as there is a lack of proof that someone can't tell a difference between having freedom and having no freedom, computational theory of the mind will never have a chance of being fully accurate. If you have statistics, that's getting better, it's getting closer to reality, you might be able to accurately model probability with 99% accuracy in a closed system,

Here's my equation, it's evolved slightly over the years but here is what sums it up.

u = y(o)

t = y(u)

m = P(u|t)

u = unit of knowledge

y = any positive whole number including zero

o = any occurrence

t = time

m = mind

P(...) = Probability of ...

if P(y+1(o)|y(o)) > 50%:

u = y(o) + y+1(o)

^That's how you get the parameter of a unit and determine a point of interest.

t = ({u : (y(u))})

^This is how you make a tuple out of units so the program can be specialized and will remember who is who and how they should be treated.

maximum = 0

if P(u|t) > maximum:

output.append(u)

maximum = P(u|t)

^With respect to the location of a unit given the point of interest, if the unit is currently the most probable, add it to the output. This is the mind.

You broke into spouting random stuff that didn't actually cohere to established facts.

You didn't do that already? A lot of debate could have been avoided if you did.

While I was reviewing it, I realized that we went on for quite some time. I like the debate, sometimes you can come to a new consensus by doing so, but I don't think that it will be anywhere near as exciting as it was back in 2009

Edited by Popcorn Sutton
##### Share on other sites

I'm still not seeing that difference I was asking for, it's not enough detail, to general. Anyway, you'd be right to say classical computers cannot truly be random, but we just aren't dealing with classical computers so it cannot be perfectly accurate model, we're dealing with something more complicated and variable, something that might not even have entirely tangible components.

##### Share on other sites

You're talking about quantum computing right? Or are you talking about the brain?

##### Share on other sites

You're talking about quantum computing right? Or are you talking about the brain?

I'm talking about a relation to both. You can't apply one system to every other system in the universe, it just doesn't work, there will always be places where the approximations diverge.

##### Share on other sites

Observation in itself explains every system in he universe, but that's too simple of an answer. The reason I say that is because if you can pinpoint every single precise location of every aspect of this universe and sequentialize it observationally, then there's no need for math.

By precise location, I mean, computationally, pixels.

##### Share on other sites

can i get an amen for one's compliment?

What compliment?

##### Share on other sites

Observation in itself explains every system in he universe

Not with epistemology. Observations only give us data for an approximate model.

universe and sequentialize it observationally, then there's no need for math.

How would you define where you pinpointed everything without math?

Edited by SamBridge
##### Share on other sites

That's a good question because the only way I know how to do it computationally is through statistics. But if we're talking about the brain then I assume, I could be wrong though, that it's done mechanically, not numerically. Classical physics mostly, but quantum physics as well. The brain is an analogue processor, but the mind can be simulated with statistics.

## Create an account

Register a new account