Re:Learning Concepts with Energy Functions
by yters on Monday November 12, 2018 @01:48PM
(#18434652)
If your beliefs are consistent with a computable mind, then what stops you from also investigating the uncomputable mind? If true, then your beliefs are broadened, and if false nothing is threatened.
Re:Learning Concepts with Energy Functions
by drdeca on Monday November 12, 2018 @04:51PM
(#18436228)
Ah, I don't mean to reject the possibility that minds are uncomputable. Perhaps they are!
It does seem likely that ideal minds would be (for reasons like those you describe).
I just think I should require a rather strong argument to conclude that they are, instead of remaining non-commital.
Like, for example, if I built a justification for my believing in the existence of souls on top of the belief that the human mind is uncomputable, then if I turned out to be incorrect about the human mind, it might lead me to believe that souls don't exist (though that wouldn't really be a logical result, but I am not always rational). So, in order to have better foundations for my personal beliefs, I prefer not to rely on the assumption of uncomputability of the mind (nor on its negation).
Basically, I want to avoid being too optimistic and believing too much because of it being convenient for my other beliefs.