1–10 of 17 posts
I am surprised by how hard it is to find any information from dissenters of this speculative claim.
Impossible. Halting Problem.
Because I don't see any model in which an AI could be shown to not be via the halting problem, that doesn't also show that we are not intelligent by the same argument. (Or, in other words, why are you saying that the halting problem applies to an AI, but not to a human?)
That's the fundamental problem, that we don't know what it is. We know what it looks like in a human, and we know what it feels like to ourselves. But we don't have any rigorous, non-intuitive idea of what it means.
For myself, I think of consciousness as the ability to watch yourself think - of being aware of your thought process. By that definition, yes, artificial consciousness could be possible - but first you have to have a machine that thinks. And now we're hung up on trying to find a definition of "think" that's rigorous...
I like the way that axotty labeled the claim as "speculative". It is, even though that speculative assumption is the dominant paradigm of AI. But it definitely is speculative, at least at this time, because actual evidence is quite lacking.
Impossible. Halting Problem.
Elaborate? Because I don't see any model in which an AI could be shown to not be via the halting problem, that doesn't also show that we are not intelligent by the same argument. (Or, in other words, why are you saying that the halting problem applies to an AI, but not to a human?)
(On the other hand, assuming that human intelligence can be reduced to an algorithm is also begging the question, just from the other side.)
If you look up Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose you will find a significant bibliography of non-mystic thought on the subject.
Some other nice resources on Godel are:
- Gödel's Proof by Nagel and Newman
- Forever Undecided by Smullyan