Only in the most idealized sense of Turing completeness would we argue whether the brain is Turing complete. Neural networks are Turing complete.
If we're interested in whether consciousness requires Turing completeness, it seems silly to use the brain as a *counter example* of Turing completeness only because it happens to be a finite, physical object with noise/errors in the system. For all practical purposes, whatever properties one would confer to a Turing complete system, the brain has them. On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 2:43 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree Turing completeness is not required for consciousness. The human > brain (given it's limited and faulty memory) wouldn't even meet the > definition of being Turing complete. > > Jason > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA-TOXz9fQ7Na2DbzN2gsFzUPzq-MsyeyzvvpzrGt3_x%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.
