date:20130821

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-21 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2013/8/22 meekerdb 

>  On 8/21/2013 11:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2013/8/22 meekerdb 
>
>>  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.


>
>
>
>
>>  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.


>
>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,
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
>
>
>   .. the only way to go out of that if for that event to be
> non-computational in nature.
>
> Regards,
> Quentin
>
>
>  --
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-21 Thread meekerdb

On 8/21/2013 11:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/8/22 meekerdb 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. 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."

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.

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. But I think that undermined his idea that computation replaces
physics. Physics isn't really replaced if it has to all be simulated.

Brent

.. the only way to go out of that if for that event to be non-computational in
nature.

Regards,
Quentin

--
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.

48 matches

Mail list logo