Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    There is no strong reason to be confident that real thoug... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There is no strong reason to be confident that real thought can only be located in continuous-state machines.

    Consciousness & MindSkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Putnam's multiple realizability thesis establishes that mental states are defined by functional organization, not physical substrate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If mental states are substrate-neutral, then discrete-state machines instantiating the right functional relations satisfy the conditions for genuine thought.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No empirical or conceptual argument has demonstrated that continuous-state dynamics are part of the relevant functional organization for cognition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Churchland's neuroscientific findings show that neural firing is an all-or-nothing threshold phenomenon, making biological cognition itself fundamentally discrete at the signal level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If human brains implement cognition through discrete spike-based encoding, the continuous/discrete distinction cannot be the principled barrier against machine thought.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The claim that real thought requires a continuous-state machine requires justification that has not been provided.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is not established that human beings are not themselves essentially discrete-state machines.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismConsciousness & Mind

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedPersonal Identity1 linked

    Related

    Churchland's neuroscientific findings show that neural firing is an all-or-nothi...If human brains implement cognition through discrete spike-based encoding, the c...If mental states are substrate-neutral, then discrete-state machines instantiati...It is not established that human beings are not themselves essentially discrete-...
    +3 moreShow less
    No empirical or conceptual argument has demonstrated that continuous-state dynam...Putnam's multiple realizability thesis establishes that mental states are define...The claim that real thought requires a continuous-state machine requires justifi...

    Similar

    The claim that real thought requires a continuous-state machine requir...89%It is not established that human beings are not themselves essentially...77%Discrete-state machines can imitate continuous-state machines with suf...76%The concept of intelligence does not rule out intelligent beings imple...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: turing-test
    View source passageHide passage
    Turing’s response to this kind of argument seems to be that a continuous-state machine can be imitated by discrete-state machines with very small levels of error. Just as differential analyzers can be imitated by digital computers to within quite small margins of error, so too, the conversation of human beings can be imitated by digital computers to margins of error that would not be detected by ordinary interrogators playing the imitation game. It is not clear that this is the right kind of res
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit