Anirban Bandyopadhyay - Computational Theory of the Mind

[@dennistucker1153]

I think Anirban is correct about the always on, always processing of this mind.

[@andrewl14190]

So if I understood correctly.. He is saying that the brain is not computable (ie we can't recreate it artificially) in the sense that most theorists believe because it is not based on serial algorithms, ie one argument after another, but rather each molecule (or neuron I guess?) is sending information to many others back and forth, which creates billions of times more choices of action compared with a Turing machine model.

[@dionysianapollomarx]

What he's saying is that the mind is not a linear system. The paper cutting rhetoric is about paper art, that's the metaphor. The arguments may involve the way paper is cut and the way it is connected to other pieces of paper which are cut in their own ways. If the arguments from a single paper form a body part of, say, an animal, you cannot reduce the body part to one source argument. There may be a minimalist reason based on categories of arguments used, but that's more of a principle concerning the arguments, that (1) it is cut and (2) it is connected. What he is appealing to is the notion that, while there are computational ways to study the mind, because processes of the mind does not follow a linear sequence, there are non-computational ways of studying the mind. In a way, this appeals to the notion of contingency (e.g. chance and randomness), but he does not cite specifics, since I think he might have more minimalistic purposes. He also says there's a bridge between computational theories (which are causal theories) and non-computational ones (which are dynamical or stochastic or probabilistic theories at minimum). If one uses logic, which has a sequence, for studying the mind, then it can only be something minimalistic, which fosters the groundwork for non-linear processes of the mind.

[@empireravenshadow5]

Your channel is brilliant

[@philippemartin6081]

Hi, good Day. Yes I watch it till a bit. It's awsome. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin

[@Earstolisten]

I’m lost on this one...

[@amol5463777]

Their is inherent dormant intelligence in various chakras situated in human body. As the consciousness rise, these intelligence are released and add a level to existing awareness. The ultimate goal is singularity of existence. Complete and absolute.🙏

[@patmoran5339]

Beliefs in the supernatural are "designed" to make people thoroughly pessimistic. The human mind is quasi-autonomous. No need for spirits. The mind is the least appreciated phenomenon in the world. It is only the optimism of the ability to explain the world that can account for continuous progress and innovation. It is a mistake and an insult to the mind to invoke the supernatural.

[@patmoran5339]

@@realitycheck1231 Buddhist alert! No, we are not of one mind. And your question is characteristically stupid. Having freedom for one's own mind is essential to harmony with others. First comes the individual then the society. Buddhism, in my opinion might be one of the most harmful ideologies extant. Maybe you can meditate on that!

[@patmoran5339]

@@realitycheck1231 And you are responding from stupidity.

[@sanjaymajhi4428]

This sounds more religious. It's non scientific.

[@Dion_Mustard]

can someone tell me what he means in a nut shell. all the cutting paper rhetoric got me lost..

[@GlossRabban]

Too _cutting_ edge to understand;P

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@GlossRabban lol

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@GlossRabban don't be so sharp with me plz

[@fntime]

RUMI, 'Pain is breaking the 'nut shell' that leads to understanding'

[@danielpaulson8838]

Mental computation is not linear. It is even beyond parallel. One molecule talks to many molecules which talks to many more molecules and so on. It's an exponential growth. Not sure if he meant brain cells. Problem solving and thought does not occur in a single line of problem solving, but continually branches out. And that it functions with our environment in rhythms based on energy. Fundamentally different from Turing. That's the gist of what I gathered. I'll await for an engineer to laugh at me.

[@swarnavosinha4572]

wonderful analysis of a complex subject

[@nunomaroco583]

Hi there can you explain super determinism, all the best, amazing talks.

[@raazbabbar5499]

if there is rhythm which causes symmetry, who first caused this rhythm?

[@danjoeb765]

Nice

[@lucianmaximus4741]

Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽

[@_a.z]

Did that illucinate?

[@pmcate2]

I really don't understand the paper cutting analogy he is making.

[@GlossRabban]

But it is cutting edge ;P

[@clemsonalum98]

I didn’t understand any of it, felt like fluff like that d pak guy

[@bigbeng9511]

Its taking simple sentences, which could be broken logically into logical statement. This could be evaluated using Turing machine; but if you cut it randomly, its would a probability based machine computation just like the atom molecule.

[@ktx49]

He's saying our mind can't be like a Turing machine(computer)...but instead consist of integrated information

[@pmcate2]

@@ktx49 But what does integrated information mean? If it anything like his paper he mentioned, then this still seems like it is turing reducible.

[@domcasmurro2417]

Good to see Cheb Khaled started a new carrer.

[@philippemartin6081]

Hi, Dr Lawrence and good Day. I belived it will be with photon and human genitic. Yes probably after it will be interesting to just tried to computied to the structure of univers. Why not we already know that structure is about filaments and we have this great quantum computer Let's tried to compute I guess. Yes I know Electricity is probably where is conscience have is I dont know what. Actually photon and human genitic; lazer pulsions set to make appear . Sorry first as to set instruments like a type of sonnar with a accostic wave range, those wave are not very famous this Day. In the ancien era where China was so advance regarding frequence and especialy those wave that I"m tallking about. Actually I look Up at the same time in a manuscrits right now ,. First again : to be abel to proof GOD direct interaction with are consiences. We have to find into are own human genitic this vibrations who make are cellules, sorry for my french, are cellules vibrantes. I juste for a minutes be able to find these frequency. To make GOD direct interaction with are cellules as to be about photons to be abel to reach us and make are cellules vibrantes. I will be back with some way better . Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin 😎🎶

[@jeremyfisher8250]

I can handle most physics concepts pretty well but I have no idea what the fudge this guy is going on about... Badly executed analogy....

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Maybe computation decide how to do something after free will determine what to do.

[@kallianpublico7517]

Free will is computing, figuring out what to do, when it deals with the unknown. This conversation.When it deals with the known the will is in repetition mode. Eating, walking, etcetera.

[@meatmasala2656]

First time confused dr. Lawrence?

[@mediocrates3416]

I don't get how the nature of consciousness can be elucidated by ignoring the fact that a lucid self is awake. Are you *avoiding* the point, i wonder.

[@philochristos]

Roger Penrose said no.

[@fntime]

Sam, explain? :)

[@philochristos]

@@fntime kzbin.info/www/bejne/nonKopyha62LmZI

[@fntime]

@@philochristos Thanks. Sam! I ironically was reading a piece on Penrose. The subject was 'Time" Computers are tools that increase speed & scope of intellectualization. They are servants like most of the cybernetic power of our brain that automatically run most of the functions of the body. Humans who are overintellectualized, almost everyone today, worship the intellectual mind. They don't realize the faults & danger of that. Logic & reason are 'mind programs' useful when used properly. But they are not the the sole function of the mind and often minimize the innate powers & function of the mind. Sam, thanks again!

[@TupacMakaveli1996]

Analytic philosophers believe so. It’s is not just computation. It’s a product of God and we cannot make a similar one. -_-

[@Bill..N]

Anirban said it himself in the beginning, computational theories of consciousness are philosophically beautiful..He should have stopped there.. From the perspective of philosophical naturalism, It seems painfully obvious, dare I say it,, SELF EVIDENT that consciousness arises from the complexities involved in selecting the BEST course of action from a myriad of possibilities.. In other words, its probably computational and THAT means that someday soon, A.I. will claim to be conscious, and we should believe them..A humble opinion..

[@pmcate2]

Do you understand the paper analogy he made? I understand that the infinite chain of paper is a turing machine, but after that he lost me.

[@Bill..N]

@@pmcate2 Yea really, that was almost comical..Way too much scissoring for me..It doesn't come CLOSE to describing Neural Networks OR how our brains work.. Was it disingenuous, or just a strong cognitive bais to protect settled beliefs..?

[@Bill..N]

@@pmcate2 Ps: Yes I've heard of this idea, but its application here certainly does NOT (As he infers) negate computational theory ,or even consider it properly..

[@Bill..N]

@@pmcate2 Double PS: I should have said it doesn't refute any form of computational theory from the point of view of a physicalist..

[@pmcate2]

@@Bill..N After reading the abstract of his paper www.pnas.org/content/105/10/3668 I think I understand what he is trying to say. I agree with you, what he has come up with in this paper still is Turing reducible I think. Having said that, the phenomena of qualia holds me back from saying we are turing machines.

[@googleuser8697]

I like your philosophical questions and im sure that you will find great answers in islam the soul and problem of evil and free will and pure monotheism you can have a look to the quran its a great book much love.

[@GlossRabban]

Did god first reveal himself to the jews? And did he give them his message first? And did these people misunderstand his messge, and bend it so gods real messege was lost? If you say yes. Then you also accept, that God once used incompetent people to give other humans his messege. If God once was stupid enough to use incompetent people, how can you be sure he did not do that mistake again?

[@googleuser8697]

@@GlossRabban 1st. A. God doesnt reveal himself to his creation in this life . B. God sends his message to every nation jews"sons of Israel" are included 2nd. Jews didn't get the first message but every nation before came with a clear message to worship the only one god and not to associate partners with him. 3rd. God make sure that he deliver the clear message so everyone know it and this delivery cloud take along time and a lot of debate until it become clear like what happen to noah. 4th. Some of the people of the book (jews & Christians) yes they bend god teachings and they know it is from god for few money. 5th. No i dont accept because god send the torah to certain people and after that like many nations they distort and change the teachings & god send prophets to certain people to revive to core teachings (but) in the final message god saved his word as it was revealed and no one can change it because the last message is for the whole of the humanity and no messengers after the last messenger Mohamed (s.a.w) I hope the message was clear.

[@GlossRabban]

@@googleuser8697 Yes, you made it very clear, that you cannot trust humans, and that humans over time wil corrupt the word of God. And The jews say their book is the final one untill God comes again. And that it is perfect. The Christians say the combined bible is the final one. And it is perfect. And that No man is allowed to add to the text. Muslims say their book is the final one. And it is perfect. And that No man is allowed to add to it. Muhammed died in 632 AD. And about. 10-20 years after (644-56) A man Who had No direct connection to God, Burned as many qurans as he could. Qurans he did not agree with, Qurans that were different from the one he decided was the right one. Here a human man, Who by his own actions showed that he was a corrupt human, a man Who was so driven by greed that he tried to keep himself in power. A man Who choose family members who mishandled their power, to rule. Not a prophet or a meesenger of God, but a corrupt man, was in charge of destroying other qurans, and in charge of deciding the right text. A man, who could without a doubt be influenced by the devil. A man Who could have choosen to betray Muhammed, like judas betrayed jesus. I Will not belive in corrupt men when it comes to God. The moment God reveals Himself to me, I Will worship him and follow him. Until then, and as long as there is not religous consencus on How you are suposed to understand and inteprit the text. And as long as there are shias and sunnies and scholars Who cannot agree. And as long as there isn't scientific consencus on the validity of the historical context. I Will not belive in it. And I Will not follow men Who claim they speek for God, I Will not follow men Who claim they are prophets. I will follow God and God only.

[@danielpaulson8838]

Those teachings come from man, who told you it came from god. Why would you believe god gave his words to them, but not to everyone? Are you not special enough? Not wise enough? Not smart enough? Not good enough? Not upright enough? Or do most humans simply believe what they are wired to believe in from birth? None of Abrahamic traditions are correct. They originate from man, and get adjusted to fit local cultures as it spreads around.

[@googleuser8697]

@@danielpaulson8838 we belive in this scripture because of the miracles search in youtube for the miracles of the quran you will find many or you can read the quran directly with commentary it has many miracles i cant text many people so sorry for short answer.