I am not trying to justify anything. I am just trying to show to you what is ALREADY the case within your brain and mind.
It is NOT about what I think. What I *think* is basically irrelevant to what I am talking about here. It is not a matter of opinion at all. It is about logical reasoning.
Or about s p a c i o u s n e s s.
As it is true that is beyond logic and truth.
But again, how do you compute space? There is by nature of what space is, nothing to compute about it (not “whitespace” which is a symbol, I am talking about the space on your screen, in the word and around your screen and in your mind and around your body etc). Yet clearly we can talk about it and even literally put it into our l a n g u a g e.
Or about non-rationality. I can just type anything I want aDSGOo9agdu9hifadllkfd. This proves I am right, because I axiomatically set this as a truth. 🧘♂️🧘♂️🍳🥠🦜😅🖱🐸
It seems the latter explains a lot of what I see from the so called rationality community and from the so called “programmers”. It is fine to engage in this type of language or thought process, but it is problematic to call non-rationality or even outright irrationality rationality, as rationality should be a sphere of logic to a good extent, or at least of humble and careful reasoning, not just saying I am right because my axioms are true according to my own axiomatic system, which might be about as right as 1=1.00001 if I look a bit more closely.
I mean you didn’t present logical argument for “human brain works uncomputationally”. Your example program can be processes by a computer that assigns “true” to the comment for the same reasons you do. Unless you define “uncomputationally” as some particular way you can process things that may be performed by real-world computers and that doesn’t have anything to do with BB, what you talking about is not the case within any brains.
>I mean you didn’t present logical argument for “human brain works uncomputationally”.
That might be true, in so far as it is already the case. There is no argument to be made, I only point out what is already true.
The human brain cannot be conceived to work solely computationally as this statement is starting to be understood to be true based on conclusive bivalent deterministic reasoning.
True → It is true.
False → It “can be conceived?”, but it cannot be conceived to work that way if it really really does not work that way. If you consider that it might or might not, you have two options with no way to deterministically, logically choose between them. So conclusively, deterministically only the true option remains, as even the false option is inconsistent in bivalent, deterministic logic, which is what is being assumed here in this particular context (which doesn’t negate that other logic is valid in other contexts). But there is no general way to compute inconsistency, it becomes evident in another way.
This is not really an argument, it is just a simple stating of bivalent truth.
It is not mean to persuade, but to point out the truth that is already the case.
Being, yes there is uncomputable deterministic reasoning. Which doesn’t mean there is not also a lot of quasi-computational reasoning happening, or indeterministic reasoning, and even indeterminate but non-probabilistic reasoning (->??? Knightian Uncertainty or one might call it Knightian indeterminacy, stochastically unquantifiable indeterminacy).
I am not trying to justify anything. I am just trying to show to you what is ALREADY the case within your brain and mind.
It is NOT about what I think. What I *think* is basically irrelevant to what I am talking about here. It is not a matter of opinion at all. It is about logical reasoning.
Or about s p a c i o u s n e s s.
As it is true that is beyond logic and truth.
But again, how do you compute space? There is by nature of what space is, nothing to compute about it (not “whitespace” which is a symbol, I am talking about the space on your screen, in the word and around your screen and in your mind and around your body etc). Yet clearly we can talk about it and even literally put it into our l a n g u a g e.
Or about non-rationality. I can just type anything I want aDSGOo9agdu9hifadllkfd. This proves I am right, because I axiomatically set this as a truth. 🧘♂️🧘♂️🍳🥠🦜😅🖱🐸
It seems the latter explains a lot of what I see from the so called rationality community and from the so called “programmers”. It is fine to engage in this type of language or thought process, but it is problematic to call non-rationality or even outright irrationality rationality, as rationality should be a sphere of logic to a good extent, or at least of humble and careful reasoning, not just saying I am right because my axioms are true according to my own axiomatic system, which might be about as right as 1=1.00001 if I look a bit more closely.
I mean you didn’t present logical argument for “human brain works uncomputationally”. Your example program can be processes by a computer that assigns “true” to the comment for the same reasons you do. Unless you define “uncomputationally” as some particular way you can process things that may be performed by real-world computers and that doesn’t have anything to do with BB, what you talking about is not the case within any brains.
>I mean you didn’t present logical argument for “human brain works uncomputationally”.
That might be true, in so far as it is already the case. There is no argument to be made, I only point out what is already true.
The human brain cannot be conceived to work solely computationally as this statement is starting to be understood to be true based on conclusive bivalent deterministic reasoning.
True → It is true.
False → It “can be conceived?”, but it cannot be conceived to work that way if it really really does not work that way. If you consider that it might or might not, you have two options with no way to deterministically, logically choose between them. So conclusively, deterministically only the true option remains, as even the false option is inconsistent in bivalent, deterministic logic, which is what is being assumed here in this particular context (which doesn’t negate that other logic is valid in other contexts). But there is no general way to compute inconsistency, it becomes evident in another way.
This is not really an argument, it is just a simple stating of bivalent truth.
It is not mean to persuade, but to point out the truth that is already the case.
Being, yes there is uncomputable deterministic reasoning. Which doesn’t mean there is not also a lot of quasi-computational reasoning happening, or indeterministic reasoning, and even indeterminate but non-probabilistic reasoning (->??? Knightian Uncertainty or one might call it Knightian indeterminacy, stochastically unquantifiable indeterminacy).