Computation Not Series

Case A0CFC58F-FBDC-494F-B5E9-9506611ABF93
Sponsor: Robert Thibadeau

  • Status

    State
    Next Steps
    Case Date
    Watch Video
    Jurors Accepted
    Juror Verdicts Finalized

    The details, verdicts, and comments within this case record come from its participants. The Court's role is solely to facilitate the case process.

    Copyright © 2022-2026 Bright Plaza, Inc., All Rights Reserved. No one may publish a case, or any part of it, without a clear reference to the link with the case number as in https://www.truthcourt.net/case/<case-id-number>

  • Details

    Name
    Category
    URL
    Accusation
    Lie Truth
     
    Argument

  • Verdicts

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is a common mistake often made by physicists who think they know how humans think. They don't.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The statement “Computation is a series of states” is true in classical computer science (e.g., Turing machines, finite-state machines). There, computation is formally defined as state transitions over time. However, in computational cognitive neuroscience, the claim is not true as a general description of how brains compute. Brains operate via: -Massive parallelism -Continuous, dynamical processes -Distributed neural activity In this context, states are outcomes or abstractions, not the mechanism itself.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is another case that is way over my head. Since this is Bobs area of expertise, I will trust what the plaintiff has said.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I fear we are trading definitions here. The physical nature of the brain means neurons exist in a series of states and that signals are summed at the synapses and reduced or enhanced in a logical way. So in terms of physiology predicates are just miniature successions of states. If however the meaning is that the conclusion of consciousness makes is not a from a strict sequence of states then yes, the accusation is a lie.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 75 %
    Supporting Text:
    Some conclusions appear to be arrived at by a series of logical steps, but sometimes the brain seems to fire off many simultaneous rockets and zoom straight to its conclusion.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Isn't this just semantics? Computation is a series of steps, right? And steps are discrete "states" towards reaching a conclusion.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I don't know, so I have to defer to the Author's expertise in this area.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 80 %
    Supporting Text:
    No, it’s not the truth. Saying that computation is simply a series of states misrepresents how brains actually work. In neuroscience, computation happens through massively parallel processes, not a neat step-by-step sequences.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    A result of brain computation can be a series of states. But the computation itself NEVER IS.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    No, it is not the whole truth. Here’s why, clean and precise: -What the statement gets right In classical computation, computation can be described as a sequence of states. -In neuroscience, brains are parallel, dynamical systems, not serial state machines. -What we call “states” in brain models are often emergent summaries, not step-by-step operations. What it leaves out (the missing truth) States still exist in neuroscience models Even dynamical systems are described in a state space. The brain’s activity at any moment is a state - just not a discrete, serial one. Computation doesn’t stop being computation because it’s parallel Computation does involve states, but not always discrete, serial ones. The statement “computation is not a series of states” is misleading as a blanket claim. What is actually true is this: In classical computers, computation is a sequence of discrete state transitions. In brains, computation is continuous, parallel, and dynamical, where: States still exist, but they are high-dimensional, continuous, and emergent, and what looks like a “series” is often just how we observe or model the outcome. So the whole truth is: Computation is best understood as the evolution of states -but the nature of those states depends on the system

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I'll have to listen and hopefully understand what the plaintiff is trying to explain.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    There’s more to this lie.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 75 %
    Supporting Text:
    Some idiots savants seem to arrive at answers without any chain of calculation.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Doesn't it depend on how we're defining "computation" as opposed to "conclusion"? What's the difference between "computation" and "calculation"? If I offer the math problem 8*4(6-2)+1, then aren't each of the discrete steps of PEMDAS "stages" in the "computation" to reach the "conclusion"?

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    A result of brain computation can be a series of states. But the computation itself NEVER IS. (per author)

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    No, it isn’t. The claim ignores decades of research showing that serial states are usually outcomes of computation, not the computation itself. By leaving that out, it gives a misleading and incomplete picture.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The claim “computation is not a series of states” is rhetorically strong but technically false if taken literally. It throws out state-based description entirely, which no serious theory of computation or neuroscience actually does.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I'll wait to hear what the plaintiff has to say to support his argument.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The plaintiff suggests that the accusation has some truth to it. I am not sure that even this is the case. Since we have to decide what computation means before we can criticise it.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 50 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    If computation is not a series of discrete steps, then why do we have discrete steps as part of computation?

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I'm barely able to figure out if it is the truth.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    No it’s a lie. It presents an oversimplified model as if it were a fundamental fact about computation, especially in brains. That kind of framing distorts how cognitive computation truly operates.

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is a very sad lie.

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    I don't know if there is deceit or not
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Why would scientists lie? What reasons would they have to misinform people?

    Answer:
    The deceit is that we have already decided what these definitions mean. After all there is analogue computing in which continuous inputs produce continuous outputs.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    It might be that these simultaneous rocket explosions of the brain are in fact simultaneous mini series of micro states.
    Answer Confidence: 55 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    Okay?
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is a sad lie re author.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    physicists make the "best liars" due to their rhetorical approaches

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is a very sad lie.

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is factually true.
    Answer Confidence: 80 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I think the physicists and others that believe this lie just think it is true, and I believe they will never be convinced it is a lie because they do not understand cognitive science and will give it no credibility as a science.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 70 %
    Supporting Text:
    I think it's not an intended lie but just a different supposition of how the brain works.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Again, why would scientists lie?

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Probably we need some new definitions to embrace the complexities of consciousness coming to conclusions about the world.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 70 %
    Supporting Text:
    I think it's not an intended lie but just a different supposition of how the brain works.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Isn't PEMDAS a series of discrete steps used in computation? Is there any credible way of describing "computation" that doesn't involve steps following each other? Isn't "computation" the mechanical generation of new information from old information using a reliable, repeatable procedure? And doesn't a repeatable procedure inherently have discrete steps?

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I think the physicists and others that believe this lie just think it is true, and I believe they will never be convinced it is a lie because they do not understand cognitive science and will give it no credibility as a science.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I think the physicists and others that believe this lie just think it is true, and I believe they will never be convinced it is a lie because they do not understand cognitive science and will give it no credibility as a science.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to persuade you to hate something or someone.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Yes, I take this personally. Too many times I hear these guys say the lie even after the truth has been explained and they say they understand it.

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    I'm not sure what the motivation is.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    To generate interest in Cognitive science
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Physicists are generally ill disposed to cognitive approaches to physics. I think the reasons behind physicists ignoring Wolfram’s outlying efforts Is similarly because he is not proceeding through the known physics Route but through an idea about relationships between groups of connections as being the cause of physical laws.

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Scientists who believe this spread the word with the intention of informing others.

    Answer:
    To convince the reader of the accuracy of the premise
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Why am I always Juror #5? It's odd and statistically unlikely that I would have been the fifth person to click the link this many times.

    Answer:
    I'm not sure what the motivation is.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    I'm not sure what the motivation is.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It is unacceptable for other scientists not to recognize sciences other than the one science they do.

    Answer: Unacceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    In scientific or academic settings, using the unqualified statement can make you look inaccurate or misleading

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I don’t see that there is any obligation on scientists to study other scientist’s work. But science is a career path which makes the state of science in any given area critical to their ambitions.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It's in the nature of academics and scientists to disagree hotly with each other.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    There are hard sciences and soft sciences. But to be a "science" there has to be a way to follow the scientific method in some fashion. I'm not qualified to qualify whether this particular branch of science qualifies.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I cannot figure it out and suspect many others can't, so don't know if it is acceptable or not.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is factually untrue.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is factually untrue.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This collision of cognitive ideas needs new definitions.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is my best guess as to how the brain computes.
    Answer Confidence: 65 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    Biological parallel processing is still subject to a serial bottleneck before a rational output is obtainable.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is scientifically untrue per author.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I am too ignorant on the subject to judge.

    Answer:
    This is factually untrue.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is factually untrue.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text: