[naasking]

Your brain has a finite number of particles. The information content of your brain must be encoded in those particles. Thus, the brain's state space is finite.

A finite set of configurations is enumerable, and can be mapped to any other finite set of same or larger size, like a computer's memory, with no loss of information.

Therefore, any state your brain can enter can similarly be created within a computer, in principle.

[dinkumthinkum]

I think you need to revisit your proof. Human intelligence is more complicated than that. It is not using encoding in the way you are claiming or if it is this is such a bizarre concept that it requires evidence. We don’t really understand how humans think but experientially it is a phenomena that is more complicated than a process that follows from a small set of simple rules.

[naasking]

More complicated than what? Rule 110 is sufficient to compute all computable functions. All the richness of the internet today can be produced from Rule 110 alone. You'd be surprised how much complexity can arise from simple rules.

Furthermore, the proof I laid out is a corollary of simple physics. If you want a more rigorous version, look up the Bekenstein Bound, which proves conclusively that any finite volume can only contain finite information. Your body is a finite volume, therefore it contains finite information, therefore it can be captured by a finite state machine.

Edit: I just realized I also replied to you above, so I'll take up the thread there.

[hbrn]

> any state your brain can enter can similarly be created within a computer, in principle

Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reducti...

[naasking]

All arguments disputing a computable brain reduce to claiming that something exists beyond physics or claiming that physics is non-computable in some way. There is no evidence for either of these, Penrose's theory included.

[hbrn]

Quantum physics is still physics. The fact that it's not computable (non-deterministic) is not even disputable at this point, it's the nature of reality.

The only questionable thing is whether quantum effects are essential in brain activity.

[naasking]

> The fact that it's not computable (non-deterministic) is not even disputable at this point, it's the nature of reality.

Of course it's disputable. There are at least two well known deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics that are indistinguishable from orthodox QM, Many Worlds and Bohmian mechanics.

[dinkumthinkum]

One doesn’t have to claim it is beyond physics, but no one has shown it can be simulated by a Turing machine.

[sambapa]

The brain isn't a fsm simply because I can create a game with an aribtrary number of rules. If I can do that, then there are countably infinite fsm just for making games in my brain, "making a game with one rule fsm", "making a game with two rules fsm" etc.

[naasking]

> The brain isn't a fsm simply because I can create a game with an aribtrary number of rules.

And so can a finite state machine with the same state space as your brain. Size of state space is not a difference of kind but of degree.