On 8/21/2013 11:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/8/22 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
On 8/21/2013 11:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/8/22 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
On 8/21/2013 2:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Ok, and I'm fascinated by the question of why we haven't found
viable
algorithms in that class yet -- although we know has a fact that it
must exist, because our brains contain it.
We haven't proved our brain is computational in nature, if we had, then
we
would had proven computationalism to be true... it's not the case.
Maybe our
brain has some non computational shortcut for that, maybe that's why AI
is not
possible, maybe our brain has this "realness" ingredient that
computations
alone lack. I'm not saying AI is not possible, I'm just saying we
haven't
proved that "our brains contain it".
There's another possibility: That our brains are computational in
nature, but
that they also depend on interactions with the environment (not
necessarily
quantum entanglement, but possibly).
Then it's not computational *in nature* because it needs that little
ingredient,
that's what I'm talking about when saying "Maybe our brain has some non
computational shortcut for that, maybe that's why AI is not possible, maybe
our
brain has this "realness" ingredient that computations alone lack."
It's not non-computational if the external influence is also computational.
If it is, you've not chosen the right level... the whole event + brain is computational
and you're back at the start.
But the reaction of a silicon neuron to a beta particle may be quite
different from
the reaction of a biological neuron. So AI is still possible, but it may
confound
questions like,"Is the artificial consciousness the same as the biological."
If it's computational, it is computational and AI at the right level would be the same
as ours.
But "at the right level" may mean "including all the environment outside the
brain".
When Bruno has proposed replacing neurons with equivalent input-output
circuits
I have objected that while it might still in most cases compute the same
function there are likely to be exceptional cases involving external
(to the
brain) events that would cause it to be different. This wouldn't
prevent AI,
It would prevent it *if* we cannot attach that external event to the
computation...
No, it doesn't prevent intelligence, but it may make it different.
It does (for digital AI) if the ingredient is non-computational and that there is no way
to attach it to the digital part without (for example) a biological brain.
I don't see why that follows. Suppose the non-computational, external influence comes
from the output of a hypercomputer? It cans till provide input to a Turing computer. Or
even true randomness could, as is hypothesized in QM.
if that external event was finitely describable, then it means you have not
chosen
the correct substitution level and computationalism alone holds.
Yes, that's Bruno's answer, just regard the external world as part of the
computation too, simulate the whole thing.
Well if your ingredient, is the whole of physics, then it's self defeating,
Exactly. That's what I said below
Brent
and computationalism is false... if it's some part of it, then at that level the
"realness" of our consciousness is digital and computationalism holds.
Quentin
But I think that undermined his idea that computation replaces physics.
Physics
isn't really replaced if it has to all be simulated.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
