>>16974712
>Are there any “tasks” that thinking is capable of that computation is not effectively capable of?
Producing any of the training data that slop generators rely on to support the delusion that computation can emulate any aspect of thought at all.

>>16974719
No, I’m not talking about AI (explicitly/exclusively).
I mean with a Turing machine.

>>16974722
>I’m not talking about AI
Neither am I. The reason AI slop generators can't generate their own training data is the fundamental reason computers can't think.

>>16974723
My question should’ve been worded more specifically. Is there any “algorithm” or “function,” in the sense of input-to-operation-to-output, that thinking can process that computation for some reason cannot?

>>16974730
Yeah, the one capable of producing training data for computational models.

>>16974732
Can any of these algorithms/functions be expressed mathematically or with some form of notation?

>>16974743
>Can any of these algorithms/functions be expressed mathematically or with some form of notation?
I don't know, but even if they can be, it's not unusual for something to have a neat mathematical expression for it and yet not be computable.

>>16974744
I was unaware of this.
Would you mind pointing me towards some examples? I presume this isn’t just time/speed restraint cases, like in cryptography.

>>16974748
You can't actually compute any physical system. With a finite amount of computation, you can only approximate its dynamics.

>>16974748
Look up undecidable problems, and NP problems. Really weird alternative kinds of computation are being developed - like DNA and peptide computers - to solve them

>>16974771
>NP problems.
These are computable.

>undecidable problems
>DNA and peptide computers - to solve them
You can't solve undecidable problems by computation. Most you can do with biological computing is run otherwise intractable heuristics to solve a subset of the cases falling under the general problem.

>>16974712
"Computation" is "thinking" with infinite memory and without mistakes.
That's why "counting" is rigorously impossible, because humans are finite, which is where math starts to get weird. This idea is at least roughly 100 years old by now, and there is a lot of clever tricks to make it make sense.

>>16974712
>Thinking is NOT computation.
You're right, that's why computers don't think and AI isn't self-aware or "intelligent"

computer computation is calculator systems reducible down to binary inputs (bits) on a unary system (powered).

it can do as much as would be possible and reasonable to determine by calculations and mathematics: which isn't everything, and far from enough to have already encapsulated perception and existentialism relative to perceived consciousness. Basically, it's mathetmatically proveable that current mathematics knowledge is not sufficient enough to explain the existence of what has been modernly deemed to be "Artificial Intelligence", heavily implying an other-natured origin not currently defined or taught by human discovered science and math.

>>16974839
Brown jeet.

>>16974842
you're a pseudointellectual.

>>16974844
Pffffffffffffff. Guess on some level the brown jeet knows what it's doing after all. I didn't lower life forms were even capable of projection.

>>16974847
I'm not brown nor a jeet.
You're being judged btw.

>>16974848
Then why did you write such a brown jeet post?

>>16974849
Are you capable of thinking?

>>16974852
Of course. How else could I have determined that your post is a bunch of babble? Feed it into a language model and it'll probably respond unironically with an equally meaningless word salad, it won't notice that everything you said is nonsense. That takes thought.

>>16974854
how about you try...?

>>16974856
Try what? Looks like you're going off the rails now. :^)

>>16974858
>Try what?

>Feed it into a language model
or alternatively, since you can't seem to fucking read
>thinking

do something n*gger

>>16974864
>Feed it into a language model
Why would I do that? Are you sure you're ok in the head?

>>16974867
alright thanks
have a good day

>>16974872
>broken bot shuts down
Good.

>>16974712
computation isn't capable of anything except binary logic.

>>16974712
I will obviously call you retarded.

An ai can "think" and argue through a problem, and that is based on computation.
However is thinking also emotion? You can model emotions, but not calculate the experience.
There are also a big class of uncomputable problems, it's very easy to think about them tho.

So no, thinking and computing are not interchangable

>>16974943
>An ai can "think" and argue through a problem
Obviously false. If it could think through a problem, changing a few words around wouldn't cause it to fail the same prompt.

>>16974712
A mind is capable of evaluation. A computer copies such evaluations, like a parrot. There is a category of thing which can understand, know, and believe concepts. Computers are not in this category. Manipulating a symbol, word, or sign only changes the literal pointer and not what is being pointed at. The semantic assignment of a phrase is already of the first type and not the second.
This is all platonic.
The alternatives are self-refuting because whatever arrangement they come in, they expressly assume truth and knowledge. Unlike embrace monke as an escape from the Hegelian trap, a monke must be a thing, embrace must be a thing, a directive must be a thing. Even nonsense exists subordinate to the sensible. There is no way out of it. And the other kinds of alternatives can safely be refuted by asking "is this true." Modal formulations necessitate it.
A hysteria has risen in the belief of various kinds of logics, say the constructive logic. But these are second order systems related to ambiguity in communication. If a cat is mentioned in conversation there are many things it could be referring to:
1. the universal idea of cat
2. a particular cat (garfield, simba, tom)
3. a kind of cat (real, fictional, lion, houepset)
Etc.
There is are real concern of short-hand abbreviation and identity. Aside from logical riddles that could be created from this sort of idea, does it rise to the level of supplanting classical logic?

>>16975045
There is a criterion for logical application and that must supplant any of the dependent logics. And if it doesn't, then it is must be governed by at least one of them. But this phraseology is itself a predicate of some logic. So each logic produces some L(X) for the criteria. Suppose these criteria do not point in a thing that can be called logic and the appeal isn't just to a higher order logic. But this means a logic evaluates a thing which it can't by definition, L(Y). So the appeal to other logic is invalid to refute the one at hand. More over, they must be synergistic for their claims to hold opposing evaluation still necessitates a criteria which must be contained in the higher order logic and these are demonstrable on a case by case basis.

Suppose there is an ~L(y) which opposes the above, and this would contradict the conclusion and show that it is fine for logic to evaluate non-logical things, else it reduces to merely L(y). Then we are now literally pointing at the particular predication above, entailing subordination.
>there is a criterion for logical application and that must supplant any of the dependent logics. And if it doesn't, then it is must be governed by at least one of them
So there is, L(x), ~L(y) and~L(x) because L(x) is a particular logic
~L(y) further insists and holds.
L(y) now entails that the L(Y) -> ~L(y) is the superior decision criteria. And now its seems like the liar's paradox, except
>~L(y) further insists and holds
This asserts the truth of the matter, and so ~L(y) -> L(y) nonetheless.
And L(y) is a particular one and that one is classical logic.
Circling back to the impossibility of escape, it is a likeness to a statement: the rational is the most irrational possibility of an irrational universe.
and the other route:
>~~L(y) -> L(y)
Back to classical logic again.

>>16974712
>Computation is capable of many “tasks” that thinking is not.
anon here disclosing his mental disability
>Don’t call me a retard, I’m trying to figure something out.
heh

>>16974730
Instincts
Feelings

>>16975154
You can mentally perform any operation a computer can? Not hypothetically, but in practice?

>>16975219
Computers are just algorithm runners. I can run simulations in my head and run a virtual von neumann system and use a mind palace as storage. Honestly that all sounds dumb but I have wondered about the idea of a "mind PC" or something like that. Once you learn C you can actually envision how the PC is running your program it is technically possible to run a program in your head, the issue is when you're doing tons of calculations. I'm not sure if computers can do what humans can do bc as we are searching for "true AI" we never asked if I was real to start. Are we really intelligent when for one you can only really focus on one thing at a time. Maybe we are reaching for what we think is emotion/intelligence and we are artificial ourselves