the-podcast guy recently linked this essay, its old, but i don’t think its significantly wrong (despite gpt evangelists) also read weizenbaum, libs, for the other side of the coin

  • plinky [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    We can simulate a water molecule, does it make a turing machine then? Is single protein? A whole cell? 1000 cells in some invertebrate?

    Simulation doesn’t work backwards, it’s not an implied equivalency of turing completeness for both directions. If brain is a turing machine we can map one to one it’s whole function to any existing turing machine, not simulate it with some degree of accuracy.

    • Highalectical@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      With automata, something that is turing complete can also do what all lower levels of automata can do. E.g. something that is a turing machine can function as a finite state machine, but it is not just a finite state machine. Likewise, a soul is capable of doing all computations a turing machine can do (this is indisbutably true, otherwise we’d have never been able to make computers in the first place), but it isn’t just a turing machine.