In the previous discussion, we explored the differing views of Turing and Gödel regarding brain function. Turing viewed the brain as a computer, believing its primary role was computation and information processing. Gödel, however, argued that beyond computational ability, the human brain possesses complex characteristics such as emotions and consciousness, which cannot be reduced to pure computation. According to Gödel, the roots of these emotions and consciousness lie in the core element of the self.
The self, as a fundamental element of the human brain, profoundly influences our worldview, cognition, and behavior. As the philosopher Fichte stated, the self is the foundation of all knowledge and existence. He proposed that the self is not merely an awareness of one’s existence but the cornerstone of understanding the world and constructing meaning. Whether in our perception of the world, our recognition of others, or even our recollection of past events, all are framed within the reference system of the self.
In daily life, many people may not realize that their perception of the world is shaped within the framework of the self. For instance, when recalling past events, we often find that we cannot remember experiences from before the age of three. This is because, at that stage, we have not yet developed self-awareness. Without the support of self-consciousness, external symbols cannot be effectively linked into complete memories. Thus, understanding a knowledge system is not about the quantity of memorized content but rather about the ability to connect information with self-awareness, forming a meaningful whole.
Gödel’s contributions extended beyond mathematics; he also offered significant insights in philosophy and cognitive science. By re-examining Kant’s set theory, he challenged traditional methods of knowledge system construction. Gödel believed that brain function is not merely cold logical computation—it also involves emotions and consciousness, which stem from the self. In his framework, the self is not just an abstract philosophical concept but a core element tightly linked to emotions, consciousness, and the entire cognitive process.
The self serves as the “root” of knowledge, providing the foundation for various information-processing activities in the brain. Without the self, much knowledge cannot be effectively organized and remembered. Through a philosophical lens, Gödel deepened our understanding of “how the brain constructs cognition.” He challenged traditional computational models, arguing that the human brain is not entirely equivalent to a computer. While computers can perform logical operations, they lack emotions, consciousness, and self-perception—traits that define human cognition.
Turing’s theory overlooked the importance of self-related attributes such as emotions and consciousness, treating these aspects as a “divine realm” beyond his model’s consideration. Gödel criticized Turing’s computational model as overly simplistic, failing to capture the complexity of the human brain. Turing regarded the brain as a computational tool, neglecting the role of emotions and consciousness, particularly how these traits emerge within the framework of self-awareness and influence behavior and decision-making.
This limitation is especially evident in language usage. Language is not merely a tool for transmitting information; it is also an expression of thought and self-awareness. If we attempt to remove the word “I” from language, we will find it difficult to communicate effectively. This is because the word “I” represents our affirmation of our own existence and serves as the foundation for perceiving the world and interacting with others. Without self-awareness, a language system would be unable to support complex thinking and expression.
Intelligence, as a complex cognitive ability, remains an enigma. The definition of intelligence in Turing’s era was overly narrow, primarily focusing on computation and logical reasoning. However, with the advancement of science and philosophy, we now recognize that intelligence is not merely the application of tools; it is a high-level ability closely tied to self-awareness, emotions, and consciousness. As Gödel pointed out, the root of intelligence is deeply connected to human self-awareness—an aspect that machines cannot replicate.
From Spinoza to Einstein, we see an understanding of nature and the universe that aligns with the philosophical logic of the self. The self is not merely an individual’s consciousness; it is also intricately linked to the evolutionary processes of the universe and nature. In this regard, Gödel’s philosophy resonates strongly with Spinoza’s perspective, both suggesting that the existence and development of the world emerge within a system dominated by self-awareness, gradually giving rise to life and intelligence.
When delving into the philosophical implications of Turing machines and Bitcoin, we cannot overlook Gödel’s contributions. Gödel and Turing hold significant positions in philosophy and computer science, not only because of their theoretical achievements but also in how they shaped our understanding of “self” and “meaning.” Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem revealed that within any mathematical system, there exist truths that cannot be derived internally. This discovery laid the intellectual groundwork for the future of computer science and artificial intelligence. He demonstrated, from a logical perspective, the infinite complexity of human thought—an intricacy that Turing machines cannot fully replicate.
Turing and Gödel’s ideas have influenced modern computer science, particularly in artificial intelligence. Although Turing proposed a theoretical framework for computers to simulate human thought, he did not resolve the question of how computers could possess emotions and consciousness. Turing speculated that computers might emulate human thought through “aura,” but Gödel and Wiener criticized this assumption, arguing that Turing’s model overlooked the essence of emotions and consciousness—an issue that remains a major bottleneck in AI development.
Throughout the development of information theory, scientists have continually advanced computer technology, yet these technologies still rely on “meaningless computation” at their core. In contrast, Wiener’s cybernetics suggests that meaningful interaction between machines and humans can only be achieved by integrating emotions and consciousness. Wiener believed that cybernetics could enable machines to engage in meaningful communication through perception and feedback mechanisms, rather than merely transmitting information.
Gödel and Wiener’s critiques of Turing’s machine theory found an unexpected response in the emergence of blockchain technology. When Satoshi Nakamoto designed Bitcoin, he was, in effect, addressing the “divine realm” problem posed by Turing and Gödel. Bitcoin is more than just a digital currency—it represents a philosophical system that transcends pure computation. By leveraging the decentralized structure of blockchain, Nakamoto created a dual-world system (digital and physical), aligning with Gödel and Wiener’s vision of a “meaningful” system.
Bitcoin’s design is not solely focused on digital transactions; it also emphasizes the philosophy and social significance behind these transactions. By linking the real world with the digital world through blockchain, Bitcoin introduces a new value paradigm—it is not just a financial tool but a decentralized system with self-awareness and meaning.
Bitcoin’s success reflects Gödel and Wiener’s call for a “meaningful self-system.” In Bitcoin’s design, Nakamoto combined Turing machine computation with self-awareness and emotional logic to create a novel economic system. This system is not merely digital currency; it represents the fusion of two worlds—the digital and the physical.
Within this system, real value and meaning are realized through blockchain technology. Bitcoin’s dual-world design allows it to transcend traditional digital currencies, becoming a system that embodies self-awareness, emotions, and value. This system addresses Gödel’s “undecidable divine realm” problem while also aligning with Wiener’s theory of “meaningful communication.”
As blockchain technology evolves, the market is undergoing profound changes. Bitcoin’s success has made many realize that blockchain is not merely a carrier for digital assets—it represents a new financial order. Unlike speculative cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin, with its deep philosophical logic, has gained substantial investor trust, providing stability and meaningful engagement in the financial ecosystem.
In the future, as AI and blockchain technologies continue to advance, we may witness the emergence of even more complex, philosophically meaningful systems—systems that go beyond mere tools and embody self-awareness and emotion as meaningful entities.
