Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leading Neuroscientist Says Kurzweil Singularity Prediction A “Bunch Of Hot Air”

singularityhub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Leading Neuroscientist Says Kurzweil Singularity Prediction A “Bunch Of Hot Air”

#51

Post by s_baby »

Lerc wrote: post #23

> “the brain is not computable and no engineering can reproduce it.” If you assume this is true then the brain is a physical entity which cannot be constructed by mechanisms that manipulate physical objects. The question arises "why is a body growing a brain not a feat of engineering? What did the body do that similarly sophisticated machines cannot?"

I believe the argument is consciousness is not a causal product of relations represented in the brains structures but a property of the substrate.

Consider that a brain model on a turing machine is equivalent to a sticks and stones model running the same program. Do you believe some person moving a bunch of sticks and stones around can produce conscious experience?

Re: Leading Neuroscientist Says Kurzweil Singularity Prediction A “Bunch Of Hot Air”

#52

Post by diminoten »

pwny wrote: post #19
diminoten wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're saying is merely postulation, it's not "demonstrably" true, not to mention your use of the term "impractical" is probably the most misleading use of that word I've read today. You're writing off thousands of years of philosophy and dozens of years of experimental results in maybe a paragraph, if I'm being generous.

It actually IS demonstrably true that the brain is made of atoms. That makes it a quantum system, which our modern physics tells us how to simulate. The use of the term "impractical" here refers to the fact that we don't have quantum computers and that we don't have the computing power required to simulate such a large quantum system. I'd say dismissing thousands of years of philosophy here is relevant, since it was…

Yes, the brain is made up of atoms, but our modern physics does not, at least not with the degree of certainty you're waving about, tell us that it is therefore, necessarily, simulatable.

I believe this to be the case, and there is some evidence that this is the case, but it is not anywhere near as certain as you're claiming.

As for your word choice re: impractical, the word shouldn't be used in place of 'impossible', which is the correct word you're looking for.

Re: Leading Neuroscientist Says Kurzweil Singularity Prediction A “Bunch Of Hot Air”

#53

Post by OGinparadise »

vor_ wrote: post #37
OGinparadise wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God means different things to different people, from one that watches everything you do, to one that maybe is a force out there, like gravity.

A physical force like gravity? Why refer to it as a god then?

Here's another belief http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Why call it God? Because it means different thing to different people and no on owns the word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Other_concepts

Re: Leading Neuroscientist Says Kurzweil Singularity Prediction A “Bunch Of Hot Air”

#54

Post by Filligree »

zmmmmm wrote: post #16
joe_the_user wrote: post #2

Some of this actually fits perfectly into the framework of Kurzweil's The Singularity in the sense that you could argue that most neuroscientists are too focused to the complexity of the brain and aren't anticipating the progress that may be possible through rapid evolution of tools for looking at the brain . The said, I think Kurzweil's plan for constructing an intelligence actually oversteps his basic approach. Too…

> Personally, I'd say Paul Allen's counter-argument, which I recall as boiling down to the inherent limits of human-produced software, is the most plausible counter-argument I often wonder if the ultimate end counter argument may be that the same things that make us "intelligent" are also those that give us our human flaws - exactly the same things that we were trying to avoid in the first place by using computers. P…

Most of those attributes turn out to have perfectly good explanations in evolutionary psychology.

That being the case, there's no reason to expect a mind that isn't produced by the same process to possess them.

Re: Leading Neuroscientist Says Kurzweil Singularity Prediction A “Bunch Of Hot Air”

#55

Post by Filligree »

alexvr wrote: post #47

We're just waiting for a really smart simulation programmer with access to a super-powerful computer to create a simulation of a small, earth-like world so we can watch as accelerated evolution creates some human-like (or not) being with a similar brain. I think we can write an algorithm for an AI that can pass the Turing test, but I think serious AI that will precipitate the singularity will come as a result of evol…

That would take a seriously powerful computer.

I remember reading a short story along those lines.. it ended with the simulated beings hacking physics and dropping off into a pocket universe, without helping at all.

Well, I guess they didn't kill us all. Might have been written by Greg Egan. Sounds familiar?

Re: Leading Neuroscientist Says Kurzweil Singularity Prediction A “Bunch Of Hot Air”

#56

Post by diminoten »

pwny wrote: post #34
dododo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

quantum theory is a hypothesis. perhaps it's the best one so far for what the brain is made from. but it's truth is only as demonstrable as this: it's not yet been falsified.

You can say the exact same thing about any scientific model. My view on this has always been that as long as the model accurately predicts experimental results, assume it is correct for your calculations until it is proven to be wrong. Even then, we never stopped using classical mechanics even though they were proven to be wrong at a variety of scales. They just happen to very closely approximate reality in some cont…

Theories not only have to predict outcomes of events, they must also be falsifiable (and must expand on something thus far unexplained by other theories, you can't just recreate gravitational theory, for example).

You are, by your own admission, working with an incomplete understanding of how a scientific model functions. So I ask you, why should you be even commenting on this topic? Why should anyone take what you have to say seriously on this specific topic?

Re: Leading Neuroscientist Says Kurzweil Singularity Prediction A “Bunch Of Hot Air”

#58

Post by pwny »

diminoten wrote: post #56
pwny wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say the exact same thing about any scientific model. My view on this has always been that as long as the model accurately predicts experimental results, assume it is correct for your calculations until it is proven to be wrong. Even then, we never stopped using classical mechanics even though they were proven to be wrong at a variety of scales. They just happen to very closely approximate reality in some cont…

Theories not only have to predict outcomes of events, they must also be falsifiable (and must expand on something thus far unexplained by other theories, you can't just recreate gravitational theory, for example). You are, by your own admission, working with an incomplete understanding of how a scientific model functions. So I ask you, why should you be even commenting on this topic? Why should anyone take what you h…

So no one should be commenting on this topic unless they have a perfect understanding of scientific theory? That seems terribly counter-productive.

I'm commenting on this topic to share my opinion and, to the extent of my knowledge, try to explain why I believe someone else's reasoning is flawed.

Now if you believe my reasoning is false, you're free to call that out. You're not free, however, to dismiss my contribution to the discussion simply because I'm not operating under perfect understanding of a field that isn't mine.

Call it out, explain why, participate in the discussion, and drop the personal attacks. I think at least part of my point is valid, even after what you pointed out.

Re: Leading Neuroscientist Says Kurzweil Singularity Prediction A “Bunch Of Hot Air”

#59

Post by zmmmmm »

Filligree wrote: post #54
zmmmmm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I'd say Paul Allen's counter-argument, which I recall as boiling down to the inherent limits of human-produced software, is the most plausible counter-argument I often wonder if the ultimate end counter argument may be that the same things that make us "intelligent" are also those that give us our human flaws - exactly the same things that we were trying to avoid in the first place by using computers. P…

Most of those attributes turn out to have perfectly good explanations in evolutionary psychology. That being the case, there's no reason to expect a mind that isn't produced by the same process to possess them.

> there's no reason to expect a mind that isn't produced by the same process to possess them

True ... but then will those minds be able to perform the feats of intelligence that we hope for from the "singularity"? Will a mind unable put aside the fact that valves can make a t.v. set run, unable to dream, imagine, love, and lacking the motivation of greed and competition with its peers etc. - will that mind be able to discover the transistor as an alternative? Perhaps our evolutionary psychology is part of the reason we exhibit what intelligence we have, not just an unnecessary relic of our past?

Re: Leading Neuroscientist Says Kurzweil Singularity Prediction A “Bunch Of Hot Air”

#60

Post by Sandman »

dododo wrote: post #28
pwny wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually IS demonstrably true that the brain is made of atoms. That makes it a quantum system, which our modern physics tells us how to simulate. The use of the term "impractical" here refers to the fact that we don't have quantum computers and that we don't have the computing power required to simulate such a large quantum system. I'd say dismissing thousands of years of philosophy here is relevant, since it was…

quantum theory is a hypothesis. perhaps it's the best one so far for what the brain is made from. but it's truth is only as demonstrable as this: it's not yet been falsified.

You're confusing hypothesis with theory. Hypothesis is a proposed explanation that can be tested (i.e. is falsifiable). Theory, on the other hand, is a hypothesis that has undergone extensive testing and has been proven to be a plausible explanation for observed phenomena. Quantum mechanics has undergone rigorous testing, and has proven time and time again that it can accurately explain many of the properties of our universe.
Post reply on HN