Instead of caring about P=NP why don't we just try to construct better models of computation?

Veeky Forums is for 13-25 year olds.
Reddit is for 22-35 year olds.
Very rarely are there any top level graduates online in forums anymore.
They jump to conclusions, straw man and contradict well known consensus-based concepts, and in some areas, they even reject axioms.

They don't seem to understand the importance of coherency or source.

In this case, user straw mans and then refuses to point to a source, just dictating anons memory justifies anons emotional retort and denial.

Debate etiquette calls for references, which I posted, and logical arguments without presumptions, which I posted, but I doubt anyone will take LOGIC for what it's worth when people can try to rely on self-serving biases and interpretations.

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

But it was never proven. It was merely a philosophical declaration, and arguments I presented ITT suggest that we should broaden our horizon.

>tfw I'm 26
Does that mean I have to move to reddit now?

I take it you don't have high reading comprehension?
I can post a test to check your knowledge of scientific principles and you can share the link of your results, timestamped of course.
:D

You have offered zero counter-point, zero counter evidence.
Therefore I see no reason to continue with you if only I have something to intellectually contribute.

Your denialism is fallacious.

Human Calculators are yet to be able to solve problems without known polynomial time algorithms.

There are droves of people who can multiply huge numbers in their heads but none who can factor large numbers in their heads

That has never been proven.

Intellectual (me):1
Pseudo-intellectual:0

I am an atheist as well.
I'm just an educated atheist.
Here are my beliefs:
Empiricism, falsifiability, fallacy checking, the scientific method, the socratic method, humility, scientific consensus, etc.

I don't believe in jumping to conclusions or siding with an unproven concept and calling it proven with emotional fervor.
That's irrational.
The only rational thing is to remain neutral until something is proven true with experimentation or some form of evidence.
Presumption is never evidence.

Fuck off with your reddit copypasta collection.

Can a Turing machine be creative?

Yes, provided you define creative in a meaningful way.

Wrong answer.

So you can't define creative in a meaningful way?

why the fuck are you feeding this guy? if anything you're even more retarded than him

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

I dont even know who's baiting who anymore

Go ahead and define human creativity algorithmically. I'm waiting.

>...even more retarded than him (implied "is")

...even more retarded than he (is).

Careful, there, calling people incapable. :)

You are half way there. Now just realize that the world is, but you can't say anything about it; and what you do say about it, called the Narrative, is not.
The Narrative is a story of the world from a perspective that the world would never take for itself. You see, without the Narrative to give the story its intent, the world is indistinguishable from a Narrative of randomness.
If you were an alien and didn't survive in the same way as humans, you would never have any reason to see human action as any different than Brownian motion, with respect to the totality of arrangements of stuff and what arrangements aliens can make or need to make to survive. Of course this also assumes the aliens had a Narrative as well.
The Narrative is the iterative result of a collection of iterations made from differential sense, but also from other narrative outputs of other Narratives. A meta-narrative would be that the brain is a sense organ that can sense itself, sense itself sensing itself, and filter the senses. Your Narrative is ultimately an illusion created by filtering out the perspective that you are making a story of the world, and fooling yourself that your narrative of the world is the world.
Nothing is true, and all of your math and science and philosophy are the result of the process of Narration being misapplied to the process of Narration and leading to paradoxes.
The only thing that matters is that you have the confidence to act in a manner that leads to your desire. because as far as the world is concerned, it has no reason to make a story about itself, and therefore has no need of purpose, or cause and effect, or statistical inference, or objects or perspectives or relationships or emotion or instinct.

So in the end the Pragmatist asks, "What is useful to be believed?" and has no fear in changing his Narrative to achieve his desires.

Brutal honesty bro....

>bigger than him
>taller than him
>more apt than him
>more retarded than him

the point isn't he's not a retard, the point is you're feeding his idiocy and fucking up the board.

fuck off

You are half way there. Now just realize that the world is, but you can't say anything about it; and what you do say about it, called the Narrative, is not.
The Narrative is a story of the world from a perspective that the world would never take for itself. You see, without the Narrative to give the story its intent, the world is indistinguishable from a Narrative of randomness.
If you were an alien and didn't survive in the same way as humans, you would never have any reason to see human action as any different than Brownian motion, with respect to the totality of arrangements of stuff and what arrangements aliens can make or need to make to survive. Of course this also assumes the aliens had a Narrative as well.
The Narrative is the iterative result of a collection of iterations made from differential sense, but also from other narrative outputs of other Narratives. A meta-narrative would be that the brain is a sense organ that can sense itself, sense itself sensing itself, and filter the senses. Your Narrative is ultimately an illusion created by filtering out the perspective that you are making a story of the world, and fooling yourself that your narrative of the world is the world.
Nothing is true, and all of your math and science and philosophy are the result of the process of Narration being misapplied to the process of Narration and leading to paradoxes.
The only thing that matters is that you have the confidence to act in a manner that leads to your desire. because as far as the world is concerned, it has no reason to make a story about itself, and therefore has no need of purpose, or cause and effect, or statistical inference, or objects or perspectives or relationships or emotion or instinct.

So in the end the Pragmatist asks, "What is useful to be believed?" and has no fear in changing his Narrative to achieve his desires.

Brutal honesty bro....

It does matter. It is a verb tense of "being".

He is, She is, I am, We are

not

Him is, Her is, Me am, Us are.

It just sounds right when incorrect because so many people fuck it up.

fuck off, autist
that's how people use the language now
than had a shitload of transformations of use

>than

k. Just to let you know, I like my burgers well done.

>it's okay to use improper grammar because everyone else does it
Why even bother having set grammatical rules at all?

>MAXIMUM WORD SALAD
this shit just fucking kills me

>this shit just fucking kills me

If only that were true, there would be no Trump supporters.

>consciousness can be simulated by a Turing machine
Yes it can.

>I posit that neither the collapse of the wavefunction in QM, nor the creativity of human consciousness are algorithmically computable by a Turing machine. They are strictly stronger.

You'd first have to define terms. I don't understand what that means.

In computation theory, the language that you are using normally means something like this:
There is a decision problem that cannot be solved by Turing machines, but which can be solved by some other sot of machine.

What is the decision problem that cannot be solved by a Turing machine? Start there.

Or start giving new definitions for terms.

>consciousness cannot be simulated by a Turing machine
[citation needed]

youre onto something--

on intelligence is a book you should read. talks about brain computational methods

I think Roger Penrose (famous mathematical physicist) wrote about this.

yup, brains can know the truth value of godel sentences, according to penrose, which implies that they are not computable in the sense of computable axiomatic systems

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada
gaaaaay

>human minds are consistent, logical systems of finite deduction with a countable amount of symbols
>human minds can reason about the mind's own consistency and prove they're not consistent

this is a fucking retarded argument

>neither quantum mechanics nor consciousness can be simulated by a Turing machine
Oh, crazy. I'll be sure to let everyone know that every single human somehow violates reality. We are all God! (JK. We are all Turing machines.)

kekekekek whats it like not being able to think

>if it can't be described by a Turing machine, it can't be part of reality
Your dogmatism is repulsively anti-scientific.