| > This is not the case for the people who claim that they are computers. They always leave the instruction set undefined which makes their claims hard to believe. What is your alternative? Can you explain to us how the brain could possibly do something - down to the atomic level - that would allow it to do something that not only is not possible to simulate, but that also does not still constitute computation? We don't even have language for talking about such "operations" that are so different from all forms of computation that it is not just another form of computation. Just try to describe one such hypothetical state change that can not be reproduced with a Turing computable function. At the same time, your insistence on "instruction sets" is meaningless. An "instruction set" the way we tend to consider them is not necessary to parameterize a function. A neural network with input/output used to provide the "tape" can trivially be made Turing complete. If you consider the weights or connections of the network an instruction set, then there you go - that we don't know how to measure and extract all the details of the neural network of a brain does not mean we can't observe their presence. And it also does not mean we haven't done a vast amount of measurements without observing any hint of unknown physics affecting state transitions. To simplify it: Even a simple mechanical thermostat is parameterized - the dial provides "an instruction set" in the form of an ability to set a single threshold that alters the behaviour of the function computed. But if you expect something that looks like what we typically talk about when we talk about an instruction set, then that is a very limiting view of computation, and one I've already pointed out to you is just one part of the multiple types of computational devices we've built. Including heavily parameterisable ones. |