>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 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).