Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

No, I mean, it's nice but I don't think any of that works. You say "Therefore, there is a function capable ..." that is a non-sequitur. But, let's set that aside, I think the key point here is about Turing machines and computability. Do you really think your mind and thought-process is a Turing machine? How many watts of power did it take to write your comment? I think it is an absolute certainty that human intelligence is not like a Turing machine at all. Do you find it much more troublesome to think about continuous problems or is ironically more troublesome to discretize continuous problems in order to work with them?


I think it's much more difficult to fix a broken down human than a broken down car. Does it mean, by your logic, we are closer to cars?


What makes it an "absolute certainty" for you?

FWIW human brain does indeed consume a lot of energy, accounting for over 20% of our body metabolism. We don't know how to attribute specific watts consumed to specific thoughts because we don't understand the functioning of the brain enough, but there's no obvious reason why it shouldn't be possible.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: