A
Anonymous05/12/26, 09:42No.16974712
Thinking is NOT computation.
Computation is capable of many “tasks” that thinking is not.
Are there any “tasks” that thinking is capable of that computation is not effectively capable of?
Don’t call me a retard, I’m trying to figure something out.
73
Replies
A
Anon05/12/26, 09:52No.16974719
>Are there any “tasks” that thinking is capable of that computation is not effectively capable of?
Producing any of the training data that slop generators rely on to support the delusion that computation can emulate any aspect of thought at all.
A
Anon05/12/26, 13:03No.16974789
"Computation" is "thinking" with infinite memory and without mistakes.
That's why "counting" is rigorously impossible, because humans are finite, which is where math starts to get weird. This idea is at least roughly 100 years old by now, and there is a lot of clever tricks to make it make sense.
A
Anon05/12/26, 14:35No.16974829
>Thinking is NOT computation.
You're right, that's why computers don't think and AI isn't self-aware or "intelligent"
A
Anon05/12/26, 14:56No.16974839
computer computation is calculator systems reducible down to binary inputs (bits) on a unary system (powered).it can do as much as would be possible and reasonable to determine by calculations and mathematics: which isn't everything, and far from enough to have already encapsulated perception and existentialism relative to perceived consciousness. Basically, it's mathetmatically proveable that current mathematics knowledge is not sufficient enough to explain the existence of what has been modernly deemed to be "Artificial Intelligence", heavily implying an other-natured origin not currently defined or taught by human discovered science and math.
A
Anon05/12/26, 16:42No.16974937
computation isn't capable of anything except binary logic.
A
Anon05/12/26, 16:51No.16974943
I will obviously call you retarded.An ai can "think" and argue through a problem, and that is based on computation.
However is thinking also emotion? You can model emotions, but not calculate the experience.
There are also a big class of uncomputable problems, it's very easy to think about them tho.So no, thinking and computing are not interchangable
A
Anon05/12/26, 19:16No.16975045
A mind is capable of evaluation. A computer copies such evaluations, like a parrot. There is a category of thing which can understand, know, and believe concepts. Computers are not in this category. Manipulating a symbol, word, or sign only changes the literal pointer and not what is being pointed at. The semantic assignment of a phrase is already of the first type and not the second.
This is all platonic.
The alternatives are self-refuting because whatever arrangement they come in, they expressly assume truth and knowledge. Unlike embrace monke as an escape from the Hegelian trap, a monke must be a thing, embrace must be a thing, a directive must be a thing. Even nonsense exists subordinate to the sensible. There is no way out of it. And the other kinds of alternatives can safely be refuted by asking "is this true." Modal formulations necessitate it.
A hysteria has risen in the belief of various kinds of logics, say the constructive logic. But these are second order systems related to ambiguity in communication. If a cat is mentioned in conversation there are many things it could be referring to:
1. the universal idea of cat
2. a particular cat (garfield, simba, tom)
3. a kind of cat (real, fictional, lion, houepset)
Etc.
There is are real concern of short-hand abbreviation and identity. Aside from logical riddles that could be created from this sort of idea, does it rise to the level of supplanting classical logic?
A
Anon05/12/26, 22:04No.16975154
>Computation is capable of many “tasks” that thinking is not.
anon here disclosing his mental disability
>Don’t call me a retard, I’m trying to figure something out.
heh
A
Anon05/15/26, 11:52No.16976463
The difference is that thinking is distributed non-locally in your brain. And non-deterministic. So neuron A gets activated with an action potential and neuron Z might simultaneously due to a shared environmental triggers. But it's also possible neuron X got activated with neuron A instead.
A
Anon05/15/26, 12:33No.16976491
>replying to itself
My God, the trauma of being non-consensually touched by a non-physical computer must be very non-physically painful.