Neuroscience isn't a subset of computer science. It's a study of biological nervous systems, which can involve computational models, but it's not limited to that. You're mistaking a kind of map (computation) for the territory, probably based on a philosophical assumption about reality.

At any rate, biological organisms are not like LLMs. The nervous systems of human may perform some LLM-like actions, but they are different kinds of things.

▲

gf000 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Who says it is a subset of computer science?

But computational models are possibly the most universal thing there is, they are beneath even mathematics, and physical matter is no exception. There is simply no stronger computational model than a Turing machine, period. Just because you make it out of neurons or silicon is irrelevant from this aspect.

▲

goatlover 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Turing machines aren't quantum mechanical, and computation is based on logic. This discussion is philosophical, so I guess it's philosophy all the way down.

	▲	WarmWash an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Quantum computers don't provide access to novel problems, they provide access to novel solutions. You can use a classic transistor turing machine to solve quantum problems, it's just gonna take way longer.
	▲	mikkupikku an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Giving a Turing machine access to a quantum RNG oracle is a trivial extension that doesn't meaningfully change anything. If quantum woo is necessary to make consciousness work (there is no empirical evidence for this, BTW), such can be built into computers.