Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
How is it logically possible that a brain, by this I mean essentially a very complex biological Turing machine, to ever come up with something like Godel's incompleteness theorems? Stuff that a traditional "computer" would never be able to work out even if given an infinite amount of time.
Our ability to generate logically consistent proofs for complex mathematics necessarily implies that either the brain is an n-dimensional manifold (where n > 3) that can operate outside of mechanical extended reality (in which case Descartes should be ejaculating in his grave and quantum computing may hold the key to human consciousness).
Thoughts? Refutations?
If anyone can, please do run further with this.
>>
>>8460435
Actually given an infinite amount of time the computer will calculate everything because stray neutrinos will go through it and flip bits for all eternity.
>>
>>8460435
Holy fucking pseudo-intellectualism
>>
>>8460441
Fair enough, I should have specified the computer exists in a vacuum with no outside influence etc
Thought experiment rules apply
>>
Simply put, the computer is a prisoner of its language(s), and similarly is the human brain, but the human brain has something the computer does not. That is, the natural language to use as a metalanguage to think about things with. It has its logical flaws, but because of these, it is not shackled by logical formalism or rules. It is thinking outside the box, and so it is possible to get an idea like Gödel's, which is a metaidea.
To give a reference thing, consider the Monty Hall problem. Comparing some fancy enough formal language with natural languages doesn't make it immediately obvious, but this is just like the case with 3 doors. Comparing propositional logic to natural languages would be pretty much analogous to 100 doors in Monty Hall. You can express a lot more with your own mothertongue than using just those few connectives.
Some flow of thought on the subject. Not to be taken too seriously.
>>
>>8460435
>Our ability to generate logically consistent proofs for complex mathematics necessarily implies that either the brain is an n-dimensional manifold that can operate outside of mechanical extended reality
How can you ask for a refutation of this? It's airtight.
>>
>>8460474
Taken seriously or not, I enjoyed your post.
I like the important distinction you made between propositional language and natural language.
Propositional language will always be grounded in binary yes/no logic and that essential binary is always obscured by human psychology, no matter how removed the meta-analysis.
I'm not sure about a higher dimensional brain but at the very least Godel's incompleteness theorems demonstrate a fundamental flaw in psychoanalysis. We can never get to the root of our own psychology and any outside analysis will always be mediated by language.
We're not even lucky enough to be solipsists, it's more like the blind reading to the deaf.
>>
Your theory is just incoherent. It's full of non sequiturs, or at least missing proofs.
>a very complex biological turing machine
turing machine has a very precise definition. No neuroscientist today could tell you anything more than the general way in which brains work, much less an equivalence to a turing machine.
>to ever come up with something like Godel's incompleteness theorems
why do you think a computer, given the proper axioms would not come up with the theorems?
>Our ability to generate logically consistent proofs for complex mathematics
As far as we know. Ironically, by Godel, we would never be sure. not positively anyways.
> implies that either the brain is an n-dimensional manifold (where n > 3)
lolwut?
this was the biggest non-sequitur of all.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2