undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdonatj3y ago0 comments

Hear me out. In the most basic sense, to believe the mind a box that can output things not based on input is inherently to believe it "irrational" in the truest sense of the word.

It is to believe the mind to be non-functionally pure[1] in the programmatic sense. Output based somehow other than purely on input.

And if that's the case, the question is where does that irrationality come from? A random number generator? Any developer knows there's no such thing as actual random. It's all either list based or based environmental aspects.

I don't see room for an argument to be made that the human mind isn't just mixing ideas/the environment that doesn't rely on some form of magical thinking.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function

0 pointsdonatj3y ago0 comments

Hear me out. In the most basic sense, to believe the mind a box that can output things not based on input is inherently to believe it "irrational" in the truest sense of the word.

It is to believe the mind to be non-functionally pure[1] in the programmatic sense. Output based somehow other than purely on input.

I don't see room for an argument to be made that the human mind isn't just mixing ideas/the environment that doesn't rely on some form of magical thinking.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function

0 comments

5 comments · 3 top-level

omnicognate3y ago· 1 in thread

This is a profoundly counterproductive way to approach a debate and I won't engage with it.

donatjOP3y ago

I don't see how coming at a debate from first principles is somehow counter productive?

Shining light on the unsupported parts of the other person's argument is step one of debate.

I contend there is no proof of a machine capable of creation purely from the ether.

dinkumthinkum3y ago· 1 in thread

The first paragraph is just a non sequitar anyway.

donatjOP3y ago

Care to explain?

yyyk3y ago

>In the most basic sense, to believe the mind a box that can output things not based on input is inherently to believe it "irrational" in the truest sense of the word.

No, it believes that the mind has an internal state. We have many physical cases of state which is in practice undecidable. Moreover, in many formulation of quantum physics one can have a state which is unreachable even in theory - not just hidden variable style QM theory, there are ways to get unreachable state even in 'regular' QM[0].

>And if that's the case, the question is where does that irrationality come from?

The universe itself. The linked PDF - you might be familiar with the author, he features often on HN - provides one method this is possible. Though, I'm not saying this is true, I suspect it may not be.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse