(-(-_(-_-)_-)-)

Instant follow.

GM

GM

I'm on the "my predictions" tab. Is it on there?

GM fellow nyms.

To be clear, I am not making a metaphor about the brain being a computer. I'm stating that the brain IS a computer. It has memory where it can store information over time, and it can run computations on that stored information. The brain is a computer. Not an analogy. And no, understanding that a brain is a computer does not imply that all thoughts and emotions (computer code) can therefore be understood at the atomic or chemical level, or be derived from physics. The rules of code running inside computers is emergent. It doesn't depend on what the computer running it is made up of. Just like the next best move in a game of chess don't depend on whether the chess pieces are made from glass or brass.

Slight critique that may or may-not apply depending on what exactly you mean by "Morality can be derived from physics." Ethics occurs in computers. It's obvious that rocks for example can't think about ethics, or anything else. Only computers [like our brain for example] can think about or have ethics. When a computer becomes Turing-complete, it means that it can now calculate ANY calculation that is allowed in our universe, given memory and speed constraints. That minimum limit of capabilities - becoming Turing-complete - is also the ceiling of capabilities. A Turing-complete computer can calculate EVERY CALCULATION allowed by the laws of physics, given memory and processor speed constraints. Why do I bring up Turing-completeness as a critique? Because what it means is that all the software in the universe, will run the same on every Turing-complete computer, whether you make a Turing-complete computer from neurons, transistors, or marbles rolling down tracks. That means that the physical properties of the computer fall away, and all you are left with are the emergent properties of what can happen inside computers. What can happen with code. If this is hard to grasp, imagine the analogy of chess. Fool's mate is the fastest known checkmate in chess. Does fool's mate change if you are playing with chess pieces made from plastic instead of metal? Obviously not. Once you have the rules of chess, it doesn't matter the physics of the board, the atoms bouncing around in the pieces, or anything else on the physics level. Thermodynamics has nothing to tell us about fools-mate. Likewise morality can not be derived from physics, anymore than the best moves in chess can be derived from physics. This point I am making does not mean that physics and morality do not interact in any way. It's not so simple. Is it moral to throw a pillow at you? Fire a bullet? These are moral questions that depend on the physics of pillows and guns. But we are talking about code here that emerges within computers, and the rules of code within computers does not necessarily have anything to do with physics. Code has it's own emergent properties: like prime numbers, beauty, morality, the number pi, etc. I was going to go on with 2 or 3, but this is quite a bit and I'll leave it there for now. Looking forward to what you come up with.

GM! It seems like showing the total amount of points you have would be an obvious function. Am I missing it