is the brain the turing machine

[sushi]

can the turing machine model describe the brain?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine

 

[Cognisant]

We are Turing complete however that doesn't tell us anything about how the brain works.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I would guess that the concurrency nature of the human brain would make it quite different from a Turing machine. A Turing machine would be a perfectly deterministic input/output machine, whereas in a brain signals are processed by millions of neurons simultaneously and one signal can go through a neuron faster or slower than another based on all kinds of factors, e.g. time of day, what you ate for breakfast etc, which means that you can get varying outputs for the same input.

 

[Black Rose]

The question is brought down to serial or parallel. Do events/brain states happen all at once at the same time. Or separate. It is foolish to separate them. But the question is then do Turing machines really exist or not. We know 1 percent of the brain is active at any given moment but GPUS are completely active practically all the time. It is the elements that need activation to maintain function.

And it is the type of activation that needs apply. If perception and action are what is being regulated. There is nothing special about it to warrant it a turning machine (separate turing states) Nothing is really happening separately in a GPU then it is a brain. Multiple states are happening at once in the regulation.

 

[rlnb]

Modern computers have multiprocessing/threading and distributed computing etc. Aren't these Turing machines? (Correct me if I am wrong. My knowledge on TM is rustic)

Also I think the brain has some non-determinacy and randomness, which is certainly not in a TM

 

[Black Rose]

Modern computers have multiprocessing/threading and distributed computing etc. Aren't these Turing machines? (Correct me if I am wrong. My knowledge on TM is rustic)

Also I think the brain has some non-determinacy and randomness, which is certainly not in a TM

It is a platonic question of whether turing machines exist.
Currently, all we have to work with is matter and energy.

Modern computers have multiprocessing/threading and distributed computing etc.

Are not, repeat not platonic objects, they are matter and energy so the question must be a platonic question: "do Turing machines exist on a separate plane of existence?".


Because GPU's are made of matter and energy they are like the brain, nonplatonic objects.

 

[rlnb]

@Animekitty : Can you explain a bit more? I don't know what is platonic question and what are platonic objects (fyi i did try and google it first )

 

[rlnb]

Modern computers have multiprocessing/threading and distributed computing etc. Aren't these Turing machines? (Correct me if I am wrong. My knowledge on TM is rustic)

Scratch that. Just realised multithreading is not the same as concurrency. There is no true concurrency in computers.

 

[Black Rose]

@Animekitty : Can you explain a bit more? I don't know what is platonic question and what are platonic objects (fyi i did try and google it first )

An ideal form is a platonic object. It is said to exist in platonic heaven like a perfect circle with infinite roundness. Or any perfect shape. - A Turing machine is a mathematical object (one of many ideal computer forms). Math objects are platonic objects. The question "do math objects exist" is a platonic question. Now according to me we are made of matter and energy, not mathematical objects so a GPU can do what the brain does.

Turing machine = math object (separate states)
Modern computer = matter and energy
Brain = matter and energy
matter and energy ≠ math object

 

[rlnb]

Turing machine = math object (separate states)
Modern computer = matter and energy
Brain = matter and energy
matter and energy ≠ math object

Thanks for explaining. But is a Turing machine just a math object? Isn't is a bit more? For example : line, space, circle etc are clearly math objects. But a TM is more of a functional description for a computer. Any machine, mechanical, electronic or otherwise that can perform the functions of a Turing machine (read , write , memory, instruction ...) is a Turing Machine. Just like the idea of a travel machine (a machine that can transform matter into movement) as a functional description was developed much before an actual car was built. Math objects are much more abstract. I might be just nitpicking here.
And along the same lines, even though a computer is just matter and energy, since it can perform the functions of a Turing machine , it is a Turing machine.
And if we are going meta, aren't matter and energy also just concepts?

And by asking a lot of question, I have moved aways from 'platonic' to 'socratic'... haha
(sorry couldn't help the pun )

 

[rlnb]

And sorry about all the questions. Just trying to better my understanding and not being combative. I can kinda get what you are trying to say.
And my insomnia is keeping me up.

 

[Black Rose]

And if we are going meta, aren't matter and energy also just concepts?

Brains and computers are just concepts so I would say they are the same thing.

 

[rlnb]

And if we are going meta, aren't matter and energy also just concepts?

Brains and computers are just concepts so I would say they are the same thing.

You win.

 

[Black Rose]

You win.

Some people see platonism as nonsensical because of such conclusions or misconfusion.

 

[Black Rose]

Brains and computers are just concepts so I would say they are the same thing.

realism means Turing objects are simple mater and energy, nothing more.

 

[The Grey Man]

I would guess that the concurrency nature of the human brain would make it quite different from a Turing machine. A Turing machine would be a perfectly deterministic input/output machine, whereas in a brain signals are processed by millions of neurons simultaneously and one signal can go through a neuron faster or slower than another based on all kinds of factors, e.g. time of day, what you ate for breakfast etc, which means that you can get varying outputs for the same input.

Yes, it's tempting to think of the mind as a quiet stream that flows in a straight line, for simplicity's sake, but it's more like a seething, tempestuous lake in which more or less stable currents emerge stochastically.