I'm not sure if computation is the right word to use to describe the activity of reality or brains. I prefer the term "deterministic process" to describe how reality and brains work. Effectively all the brain processes that we know about are deterministic. Quantum effects have been discovered in the brain, but there is no good reason to think that they are causally significant in any way. There certainly isn't any coherent model showing how consciousness or free will would be generated by quantum or other non-deterministic effects. https://open.substack.com/pub/eclecticinquiries/p/the-pseudoscience-of-free-will?r=4952v2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Please understand that I've been thinking about this for 30 years and have been writing and debating about it for 20. I've heard all the arguments many times and find them unpersuasive, so trying to convince me is a losing game. Only hard evidence will do that.
That said, I can agree on "process" but not "deterministic". Indeed, my sense is that the brain is an analog machine. Classical mechanics is deterministic on small scales, but I think the notion becomes questionable with large numbers. In virtue of 500 trillion synapses, and in terms of the emergent mind, I think brains may be nondetermined at the level of thought. (Determinism is one of those can-of-worms topics we could discuss endlessly.)
I don't think we know enough about how brains produce minds to say what may or may not play a role. I suspect the EMF environment inside the skull may play a role. We believe the myelin sheathing and glial cells play a role. Nature tends to leverage everything at Her disposal, so I find it easy to believe quantum effects may also play a role. We're coming to think it does in photosynthesis, and I believe brains are more complicated than plants.
What would count as hard evidence that the brain is deterministic for you? I deal with the concept of emergence in my article, and Sapolsky deals with it at greater length in Determined, the book I base my article on. Have you read that? If not, you’re not up to date in your understanding of these issues. Yes, emergent systems have properties that their components don’t, but they can’t exert a downward pressure that somehow makes deterministic components non-deterministic.
Maybe you're impressed because someone wrote a book, but I'm not. Please accept that my views are just as valid as yours. In case I wasn't clear, after 20 years of pointless debate, I am just not interested. I wrote what I wrote, I think what I think, and if you disagree, that's a-okay with me. But please fuck off with trying to convince me, because it's just a waste of your time.
I consider it a revealing mark of your character that you resort to insults without even knowing me. Substack is a big sandbox. Please go play somewhere else.
Nice essay. I agree fwiw. It philosophically fascinating to me and quite out of the question at the same time. I guess this may be to a small extent because I am of the age and generation who find computers amazing and quasi-miraculous in their own right. That is wonderful enough. They are also our current metaphor for much that has been wondered on and about for eons - I expect that something else will replace them as this someday.
Thank you. Quantum computing, probably, if they can ever get it working. QC seems far more suited to simulating reality (one key role for it may be in testing new drugs). But the scale issues can't be overcome.
I'm not sure if computation is the right word to use to describe the activity of reality or brains. I prefer the term "deterministic process" to describe how reality and brains work. Effectively all the brain processes that we know about are deterministic. Quantum effects have been discovered in the brain, but there is no good reason to think that they are causally significant in any way. There certainly isn't any coherent model showing how consciousness or free will would be generated by quantum or other non-deterministic effects. https://open.substack.com/pub/eclecticinquiries/p/the-pseudoscience-of-free-will?r=4952v2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Please understand that I've been thinking about this for 30 years and have been writing and debating about it for 20. I've heard all the arguments many times and find them unpersuasive, so trying to convince me is a losing game. Only hard evidence will do that.
That said, I can agree on "process" but not "deterministic". Indeed, my sense is that the brain is an analog machine. Classical mechanics is deterministic on small scales, but I think the notion becomes questionable with large numbers. In virtue of 500 trillion synapses, and in terms of the emergent mind, I think brains may be nondetermined at the level of thought. (Determinism is one of those can-of-worms topics we could discuss endlessly.)
I don't think we know enough about how brains produce minds to say what may or may not play a role. I suspect the EMF environment inside the skull may play a role. We believe the myelin sheathing and glial cells play a role. Nature tends to leverage everything at Her disposal, so I find it easy to believe quantum effects may also play a role. We're coming to think it does in photosynthesis, and I believe brains are more complicated than plants.
What would count as hard evidence that the brain is deterministic for you? I deal with the concept of emergence in my article, and Sapolsky deals with it at greater length in Determined, the book I base my article on. Have you read that? If not, you’re not up to date in your understanding of these issues. Yes, emergent systems have properties that their components don’t, but they can’t exert a downward pressure that somehow makes deterministic components non-deterministic.
Maybe you're impressed because someone wrote a book, but I'm not. Please accept that my views are just as valid as yours. In case I wasn't clear, after 20 years of pointless debate, I am just not interested. I wrote what I wrote, I think what I think, and if you disagree, that's a-okay with me. But please fuck off with trying to convince me, because it's just a waste of your time.
You show refreshing honesty by admitting that you're too prejudiced and lazy to participate in an intellectual debate.
I consider it a revealing mark of your character that you resort to insults without even knowing me. Substack is a big sandbox. Please go play somewhere else.
Nice essay. I agree fwiw. It philosophically fascinating to me and quite out of the question at the same time. I guess this may be to a small extent because I am of the age and generation who find computers amazing and quasi-miraculous in their own right. That is wonderful enough. They are also our current metaphor for much that has been wondered on and about for eons - I expect that something else will replace them as this someday.
Thank you. Quantum computing, probably, if they can ever get it working. QC seems far more suited to simulating reality (one key role for it may be in testing new drugs). But the scale issues can't be overcome.