Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The question you asked is sometimes called the computability of consciousness problem in modern philosophy and is one of the debatable issues. There is no clear answer to this question.
It can be said that, despite the allure of the metaphor of the brain as a computer, there are quite serious objections to the correctness of such a comparison, for example, presented by Searle (the”Chinese room argument” indicating the difference between simulated understanding and real subjective understanding) and Penrose (including on the basis of Godel's incompleteness theorem).
Neural networks were invented just as a result of studying the neurons of the brain. And it turned out that neural networks quite work “according to the type of brain”, for example, they are trained, including on fuzzy data.
You need to distinguish between computing power and consciousness. No matter how subtly the processor calculates, even with thousands of qubits – this is not thinking, but developed, albeit monstrously complex algorithms that are not combined by a conscious attitude. It will never be possible to revive a piece of iron, no matter how much it imitates the activity of the mind. Thought is not born from electrical impulses, but is fixed.
There is even an anime dystopia where this is clearly shown, as an “ideal” system for tracking the psychological indicators of all people, just use the main “brain”
The name is Psychopass.
160160160