Are human brains turing equivalent?

Know when we're going to halt

Give me a computer with the computational power of billons of neurons

You can't universally say when any algorithm is going to halt, there are some you wont be able to know
Turing machines are simulated by the universe

The strict materialist point of view is that human brains are finite state automata. No infinitely long tapes, or even arbitrary large push-down stacks.

Tapes are the feed to a turing machines, not the machine itself

>Implying you could do it.

>not continuous state automata
do you even dynamical systems bro

Can a turing machine write a symphony? Can a turing machine turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpeice?

>Huuuurr can you?

Yes, I can.

>Can a turing machine write a symphony? Can a turing machine turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpeice?
Yes. Next question.

>Yes
Please show me an example of a symphony composed by a computer. Randomly mashing keys in random intervals to create a melody and being clever enough to make matching chords ≠ composing a symphony.

>Randomly mashing keys in random intervals to create a melody and being clever enough to make matching chords ≠ composing a symphony.

lol but that's exactly what it is

If you know that one way of composing for example a motif effects a certain class of people in one way (if music can be said to effect people at all) and simultaneously you know that a specific change in that motif will bring about a different effect in that class of people, then you can make a deliberate (i.e. not random) decision according to what you want the effect to be. So it can't be completely random. The better you recognise effects the less random the music will be.

>The decision of what the effect should be is random, and since that decision determines the melody, the melody itself is random
They're not random if you can literally describe which intended effects result in which melodies being made, which is to say the function from intension to melody is known.

so you think it's not possible for a computer to be taught those motifs, scales, modes and intervals, and then let it randomly generate music within using basic frames? We didn't create those motifs with our "intelligence" by the way, it's programmed biologically that certain sound patterns are pleasurable, so it's only fair that you can program those patterns in a machine.

Beethoven was a robot
Prove me wrong

Yes, I think it's possible for a computer to write theoretically correct and not abhorrent music by using machine learning. At the same time though, the music will be very unpleasant to listen to for more than two seconds if it wasn't designed to aesthetically please the listeners. (And everybody has different tastes, so that takes different kinds of music.) I'm not saying computers can't be taught to please people aesthetically, I'm just saying so far they haven't been able to. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because those computers aren't designed or taught to toy with/effect/work on the human psyche.

He was begotten by his parents and he has developed from a baby into an adult.

what? no man knows the time of his death.

>it can make theoretically sound music but may not be very good

that applies to 99% of humans

I know, that's why there are so few we call greats

*commits suicide in your path*
Checkmate atheist.