<p>For a review of how this question is debated in Cognitive Science, search for Searle's Chinese Room Thought Experiment.</p>

<p>In the Chinese Room Thought Experiment, Searle argues <strong>there is something fundamentally meaningful (semantic-holding-preserving) about the internal state of a living being</strong>. Additionally, this meaning cannot be approximated by a computer. Consequently, <strong>since this meaning cannot be approximated, the human being cannot be reduced to a function</strong>. Any attempt at this will fail to approximate this "meaning" and be incomplete in some respect.</p>

<p>To justify this stance, he makes the analogy between a person in a room that receives commands through a door in Chinese. Although the person does not understand Chinese, thanks to reference books, he can give the appropriate response on a piece of paper and slip it back under the door. In the analogy, the reference books are the database of rules, the person is the program and the door is the input and output. Obviously the program (person) does not understand Chinese or anything about the meaning of the input and output. How can any computer program (or as you say in your question "function") be said to approximate the human mind if it doesn't understand anything?</p>

<p>There are many replies to this thought experiment. The most potent reply I've come across to this is the System's Reply, which claims that although the person does not understand Chinese, the system as a whole is what understands Chinese.</p>

<p>Searle replies to this argument by letting the man internalize the books and let him wander outside into China. Searle claims that the man will still not understand Chinese in any "meaningful" manner.</p>

<p>I don't find this reply convincing since, when you look at what "meaningful" means to Searle and where it comes from biologically, Searle justifies that there is something in the synapses that can't be captured by a computer. This is an ineffective argument since it can't be proven or disproven by measurement or experiment. Additionally, it is easily defeated by Pylyshyn's reductionist argument. Pylyshyn argues that according to Searle, if you individually replaced every synapse with an identically functioning silicon component, eventually you would cease to have meaningful thought, which seems absurd.</p>

<p>Personally, I would argue that Searle's counter-argument to the System's Reply is a limited metaphor. Give the person a chance to modify the books in their head as well as interact with Chinese in the wild and undoubtedly they will understand Chinese! That's literally how people learn language!</p>

<p>Although I have clearly chosen a side in this debate, it's far from settled, as most things remain in philosophy, but hopefully this gives you a good starting point.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-25T22:15:21.863Z
This answer has interesting information and just keeps elaborating on that information but does not answer OP's question. And to answer your question: `How can any computer program (or as you say in your question "function") be said to approximate the human mind if it doesn't understand anything?` It does not need to understand it. Just like it does not understand when I send you this comment. It is the observer that needs to understand it.
CodingYoshi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-31T19:06:41.080Z
@CodingYoshi tried to make the relation more clear
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-26T00:22:43.980Z
2017-10-31T19:06:31.890Z
2017-10-31T19:06:31.890Z
Seanny123
<p>The final two paragraphs <a href="https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/neuron-functions-and-understanding-human-behaviour-psychology-essay.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer">of that piece</a> address this exact question.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Although understanding how neurons communicate with each other contributes to our understanding of behaviour at the level of biology, behaviour cannot be reduced to biological explanations.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the communication of neurons within the nervous system assists our understanding of behaviour however, is not the only contributing factor. Reducing explanations of behaviour to a biological level suggests that we are all robots.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The article states that if we reduced human behavior to only biological factors we would essentially be robots, but that we can't reduce behavior to biology alone. So, we cannot be essentially robots.</p>
<p>If we could develop a way to hold all other factors same, than biology would work as a way to program humans.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-12T21:12:25.990Z
2016-04-27T14:44:42.687Z
2020-06-17T09:55:31.633Z
Reed Rawlings
<p>I've recently became aware of the field of <strong>Evolutionary Psychology</strong> and read the book <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201101/beautiful-people-have-more-daughters" rel="nofollow">"Why beautiful people have more daughters"</a> by Satoshi Kanazawa. It is quite enlightening - this new field suggests that humans have built-in psychological programs and preferences. </p>

<p>Kanazawa suggests - when looking for a potential mate in the african savanna, without the concept of age and calendar, the human <strong>male brain</strong> has evolved to prefer traits associated with high fertility and youth:</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Long shiny hair</strong> (disease causes hair to lose luster - evidence of health)</li>
<li><strong>Waist to hip ratio</strong> of ~0.7 (Indicates fertility and healthy hormone levels)</li>
<li><strong>Big breasts</strong> (larger breasts sag more with age - easier to guess age)</li>
<li><strong>Blonde hair</strong> (more of a northern European trait, where clothing obscures traits listed above, and teenagers lose blonde hair and turn brunette with age)</li>
<li><strong>Blue eyes</strong> (easier to see arousal via pupil dilation)</li>
</ul>

<p>The factors above combine into the universal model of beauty, because youth maximizes reproductive success (younger woman can conceive easier and will give birth to more children than a woman in her 30s). The primitive brain effortlessly and unconsciously reads traits above as "attractive". Yet one will have hard time rationally explaining why they are attractive. </p>

<p><strong>To answer your question - I would say that these "lower order" cognitive processes can indeed be modeled like a robot or personal function.</strong> </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-27T14:32:36.210Z
I feel this is a bit tangential to the question, but an interesting side note nonetheless.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-16T06:16:39.237Z
Also, Satoshi Kanazawa is not considered a very good source by everyone.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-26T17:58:03.557Z
2016-04-26T17:58:03.557Z
Alex Stone
<p>I think the key concept to tackle this question is to consider the concept of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction">abstraction</a>.</p>

<p>Abstract models are generalized models of some kind "reality" that we are interested in, with the aim to describe some behavior of the system in question reasonably well. Often the abstraction should also be relevant to many instances of the entity that we would like to describe: If you want a abstract model to describe a human, you would probably want it to be useful to describe many humans, and not just a specific human. This might provide less detailed predictive power for individuals, but might be more useful to apply to populations.</p>

<p>When talking about the world or the reality in any kind of descriptive way, we are really always using abstract models to think, rationalize and communicate about it.</p>

<p>Now for your question, of course you can make an abstract model of a human being, but you would have to ask yourself on what level of detail you want. Ignoring the practical difficulties in constructing this, we have to consider that the path to a model that matches "reality" as good as possible is endless. For example, for you to successfully model a brain, you would in the end not only have to describe every atom of the brain, but the quarks and maybe end up all the way in string theory. And in the same time capturing all the emergent behavior down this chain and not only being a reductionist.</p>

<p>Theoretically, I'd say that the answer to your question is definitely yes, it would be theoretically possible to make a abstract model for a human mind that has "good enough" predictive power.</p>

<p>Everything we know about the real world is deterministic (except for some uncertainties if we get down to quantum mechanics, that probably would not have any significant influence on a very high-level system like a brain anyway). There is no scientific support that imaginal non-deterministic things like "free will" either exists or have any practical influence, so there is nothing except the pure complexity of the matter, our knowledge and our scientific processes that sets the limits for how detailed we can describe something.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-26T00:14:18.817Z
Although this answer seems correct and is well written, it's lacking in references, which is frowned upon on CogSci.SE. Adding references to studies for support would greatly improve the quality of your answer. For example, in terms of describing the benefits of choosing the right level of abstraction for modelling humans, would this article help? http://compneuro.uwaterloo.ca/files/publications/eliasmith.2013a.pdf
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-26T07:13:07.790Z
@Seanny123 Although I generally agree, I don't make many factual statements here. I'd say that the concept of abstraction is quite well known, and I think that's all that is needed here. Maybe the last paragraph could use one though, but I'm not sure what I could find.
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-27T14:20:36.547Z
I like this answer as well, but believe the last paragraph is a bit too fast in jumping to conclusions. _"Everything we know about the real world is deterministic"_ First of all your examples already demonstrate this is not the case. Second, a lot of 'determined' behavior is measured using statistical significance; interpreting such results as true determinism is misusing statistics. Third, there is _a lot_ about the real world we do not know. Not unsurprisingly there are still many debates about 'free will' and similar concepts where there is insufficient evidence available at this point.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-27T14:22:52.017Z
@StevenJeuris Thank you for your feedback, I'll see if I can improve that part of the answer.
Alex
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-26T18:35:09.620Z
"Everything we know about the real world is deterministic". Thats not true. Deterministic by definition means that it can be determined, but there is also third kind which is chaotic, most of the real world is chaotic, no improvement in technology can tackle [chaotic system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory). Human mind is highly chaotic along with being deterministic to the level that sometimes we are also amazed by our own reaction that how did we react in such particular manner.
gfdsal
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-09T19:44:17.320Z
@gfdsal The definition of deterministic that I'm used to is not related to whether it's practically possible to predict the future, but rather that something is a system of plain cause and effect. A chaotic system is deterministic as in that the future is a causal mapping to the initial conditions regardless if you can predict it or not. Deterministic does not mean predictable by most definitions I'm aware of.
Alex
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-09T20:55:54.823Z
@Alex predictable means (cause and effect) to be determined. However the radioactive decay will not follow any notion of your cause and effect.
gfdsal
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-09T21:19:06.680Z
@gfdsal Yes I wrote about the uncertain nature of quantum mechanics in my answer as well.
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-13T11:13:53.323Z
2016-04-13T11:13:53.323Z
Alex
<p><a href="https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/neuron-functions-and-understanding-human-behaviour-psychology-essay.php" rel="noreferrer">Based on an article by UK Essays</a>, we are nothing more than robots that operate based on our past experience and other factors like amount of neurotransmitters, hormones, and other chemicals, trying to get optimal outcomes for ourselves. </p>

<p>Does this mean that every human mind can be reduced to (a very complex and nonperfect) function?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-13T05:57:31.653Z
What do you mean by being reduced to a function? Having something like a mathematical formula actually written down, or to use it like an conceptual model?
Alex
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-13T09:48:35.137Z
@Alex Hi Alex. Yes, pretty much massively complicated mathematical formula, that would give mostly correct outcome for human it was tailored for.
Matas Vaitkevicius
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-27T14:38:18.367Z
Interesting question, but that is a rather dodgy source you used there ... _"Get Your Grade or Your Money Back!"_ I recommend you update it to e.g. refer directly to the reference used within the article?
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-10T06:11:38.437Z
@MatasVaitkevicius- I have been pondering this same theory for the past few weeks and this is my thought on the subject. Once a mind can process at a Quantum level, commuinication with others would be in the same field as watching grass grow and others will find the communtcation level restricted down to a question form similar to the way a apple user commuicates with Siri.
user5434678
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-04T07:59:23.643Z
Asked in a more technical way https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/3271/human-computing-power-can-humans-decide-the-halting-problem-on-turing-machines
got trolled too much this week
<cognitive-neuroscience><theoretical-neuroscience><mathematical-psychology><theory-of-mind>
Can humans be reduced to a function?
Matas Vaitkevicius
# Can humans be reduced to a function?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-04-11)

[Based on an article by UK Essays](https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/neuron-functions-and-understanding-human-behaviour-psychology-essay.php), we are nothing more than robots that operate based on our past experience and other factors like amount of neurotransmitters, hormones, and other chemicals, trying to get optimal outcomes for ourselves.

Does this mean that every human mind can be reduced to (a very complex and nonperfect) function?

**Tags:** cognitive-neuroscience, theoretical-neuroscience, mathematical-psychology, theory-of-mind

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What do you mean by being reduced to a function? Having something like a mathematical formula actually written down, or to use it like an conceptual model?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Hi username_1. Yes, pretty much massively complicated mathematical formula, that would give mostly correct outcome for human it was tailored for.  
> **username_2**: Interesting question, but that is a rather dodgy source you used there ... _"Get Your Grade or Your Money Back!"_ I recommend you update it to e.g. refer directly to the reference used within the article?  
> **username_3**: @MatasVaitkevicius- I have been pondering this same theory for the past few weeks and this is my thought on the subject. Once a mind can process at a Quantum level, commuinication with others would be in the same field as watching grass grow and others will find the communtcation level restricted down to a question form similar to the way a apple user commuicates with Siri.  
> **username_4**: Asked in a more technical way https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/3271/human-computing-power-can-humans-decide-the-halting-problem-on-turing-machines  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-04-13. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

I think the key concept to tackle this question is to consider the concept of [abstraction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction).

Abstract models are generalized models of some kind "reality" that we are interested in, with the aim to describe some behavior of the system in question reasonably well. Often the abstraction should also be relevant to many instances of the entity that we would like to describe: If you want a abstract model to describe a human, you would probably want it to be useful to describe many humans, and not just a specific human. This might provide less detailed predictive power for individuals, but might be more useful to apply to populations.

When talking about the world or the reality in any kind of descriptive way, we are really always using abstract models to think, rationalize and communicate about it.

Now for your question, of course you can make an abstract model of a human being, but you would have to ask yourself on what level of detail you want. Ignoring the practical difficulties in constructing this, we have to consider that the path to a model that matches "reality" as good as possible is endless. For example, for you to successfully model a brain, you would in the end not only have to describe every atom of the brain, but the quarks and maybe end up all the way in string theory. And in the same time capturing all the emergent behavior down this chain and not only being a reductionist.

Theoretically, I'd say that the answer to your question is definitely yes, it would be theoretically possible to make a abstract model for a human mind that has "good enough" predictive power.

Everything we know about the real world is deterministic (except for some uncertainties if we get down to quantum mechanics, that probably would not have any significant influence on a very high-level system like a brain anyway). There is no scientific support that imaginal non-deterministic things like "free will" either exists or have any practical influence, so there is nothing except the pure complexity of the matter, our knowledge and our scientific processes that sets the limits for how detailed we can describe something.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Although this answer seems correct and is well written, it's lacking in references, which is frowned upon on CogSci.SE. Adding references to studies for support would greatly improve the quality of your answer. For example, in terms of describing the benefits of choosing the right level of abstraction for modelling humans, would this article help? http://compneuro.uwaterloo.ca/files/publications/eliasmith.2013a.pdf  
> **username_1**: @username_5 Although I generally agree, I don't make many factual statements here. I'd say that the concept of abstraction is quite well known, and I think that's all that is needed here. Maybe the last paragraph could use one though, but I'm not sure what I could find.  
> **username_2**: I like this answer as well, but believe the last paragraph is a bit too fast in jumping to conclusions. _"Everything we know about the real world is deterministic"_ First of all your examples already demonstrate this is not the case. Second, a lot of 'determined' behavior is measured using statistical significance; interpreting such results as true determinism is misusing statistics. Third, there is _a lot_ about the real world we do not know. Not unsurprisingly there are still many debates about 'free will' and similar concepts where there is insufficient evidence available at this point.  
> **username_1**: @StevenJeuris Thank you for your feedback, I'll see if I can improve that part of the answer.  
> **username_10**: "Everything we know about the real world is deterministic". Thats not true. Deterministic by definition means that it can be determined, but there is also third kind which is chaotic, most of the real world is chaotic, no improvement in technology can tackle [chaotic system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory). Human mind is highly chaotic along with being deterministic to the level that sometimes we are also amazed by our own reaction that how did we react in such particular manner.  
> **username_1**: @username_10 The definition of deterministic that I'm used to is not related to whether it's practically possible to predict the future, but rather that something is a system of plain cause and effect. A chaotic system is deterministic as in that the future is a causal mapping to the initial conditions regardless if you can predict it or not. Deterministic does not mean predictable by most definitions I'm aware of.  
> **username_10**: @username_1 predictable means (cause and effect) to be determined. However the radioactive decay will not follow any notion of your cause and effect.  
> **username_1**: @username_10 Yes I wrote about the uncertain nature of quantum mechanics in my answer as well.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2016-04-26. Score: 6

For a review of how this question is debated in Cognitive Science, search for Searle's Chinese Room Thought Experiment.

In the Chinese Room Thought Experiment, Searle argues **there is something fundamentally meaningful (semantic-holding-preserving) about the internal state of a living being**. Additionally, this meaning cannot be approximated by a computer. Consequently, **since this meaning cannot be approximated, the human being cannot be reduced to a function**. Any attempt at this will fail to approximate this "meaning" and be incomplete in some respect.

To justify this stance, he makes the analogy between a person in a room that receives commands through a door in Chinese. Although the person does not understand Chinese, thanks to reference books, he can give the appropriate response on a piece of paper and slip it back under the door. In the analogy, the reference books are the database of rules, the person is the program and the door is the input and output. Obviously the program (person) does not understand Chinese or anything about the meaning of the input and output. How can any computer program (or as you say in your question "function") be said to approximate the human mind if it doesn't understand anything?

There are many replies to this thought experiment. The most potent reply I've come across to this is the System's Reply, which claims that although the person does not understand Chinese, the system as a whole is what understands Chinese.

Searle replies to this argument by letting the man internalize the books and let him wander outside into China. Searle claims that the man will still not understand Chinese in any "meaningful" manner.

I don't find this reply convincing since, when you look at what "meaningful" means to Searle and where it comes from biologically, Searle justifies that there is something in the synapses that can't be captured by a computer. This is an ineffective argument since it can't be proven or disproven by measurement or experiment. Additionally, it is easily defeated by Pylyshyn's reductionist argument. Pylyshyn argues that according to Searle, if you individually replaced every synapse with an identically functioning silicon component, eventually you would cease to have meaningful thought, which seems absurd.

Personally, I would argue that Searle's counter-argument to the System's Reply is a limited metaphor. Give the person a chance to modify the books in their head as well as interact with Chinese in the wild and undoubtedly they will understand Chinese! That's literally how people learn language!

Although I have clearly chosen a side in this debate, it's far from settled, as most things remain in philosophy, but hopefully this gives you a good starting point.

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: This answer has interesting information and just keeps elaborating on that information but does not answer OP's question. And to answer your question: `How can any computer program (or as you say in your question "function") be said to approximate the human mind if it doesn't understand anything?` It does not need to understand it. Just like it does not understand when I send you this comment. It is the observer that needs to understand it.  
> **username_5**: @username_6 tried to make the relation more clear  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2016-04-12. Score: 3

The final two paragraphs [of that piece](https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/neuron-functions-and-understanding-human-behaviour-psychology-essay.php) address this exact question.

> Although understanding how neurons communicate with each other contributes to our understanding of behaviour at the level of biology, behaviour cannot be reduced to biological explanations.
>
> In conclusion, the communication of neurons within the nervous system assists our understanding of behaviour however, is not the only contributing factor. Reducing explanations of behaviour to a biological level suggests that we are all robots.

The article states that if we reduced human behavior to only biological factors we would essentially be robots, but that we can't reduce behavior to biology alone. So, we cannot be essentially robots.

If we could develop a way to hold all other factors same, than biology would work as a way to program humans.


---

### Answer by username_8 on 2016-04-26. Score: 0

I've recently became aware of the field of **Evolutionary Psychology** and read the book ["Why beautiful people have more daughters"](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201101/beautiful-people-have-more-daughters) by Satoshi Kanazawa. It is quite enlightening - this new field suggests that humans have built-in psychological programs and preferences.

Kanazawa suggests - when looking for a potential mate in the african savanna, without the concept of age and calendar, the human **male brain** has evolved to prefer traits associated with high fertility and youth:

* **Long shiny hair** (disease causes hair to lose luster - evidence of health)
* **Waist to hip ratio** of ~0.7 (Indicates fertility and healthy hormone levels)
* **Big breasts** (larger breasts sag more with age - easier to guess age)
* **Blonde hair** (more of a northern European trait, where clothing obscures traits listed above, and teenagers lose blonde hair and turn brunette with age)
* **Blue eyes** (easier to see arousal via pupil dilation)

The factors above combine into the universal model of beauty, because youth maximizes reproductive success (younger woman can conceive easier and will give birth to more children than a woman in her 30s). The primitive brain effortlessly and unconsciously reads traits above as "attractive". Yet one will have hard time rationally explaining why they are attractive.

**To answer your question - I would say that these "lower order" cognitive processes can indeed be modeled like a robot or personal function.**

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I feel this is a bit tangential to the question, but an interesting side note nonetheless.  
> **username_9**: Also, Satoshi Kanazawa is not considered a very good source by everyone.  

---

