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

61–70 of 70 posts

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

#61

Post by dredmorbius »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #17

When Newton came up with his universal law of gravitation, he also made an interesting observation. He had no idea why gravity worked the way it did, he could only model its behavior numerically. It's been over 300 years and we're still trying to figure out exactly how gravity works. But in a way it doesn't matter: his law has given humanity tremendous abilities it didn't have before. When Deep Blue won the Jeopardy…

Deep Blue's Jeopardy performance was in large part due to its buzzer speed. It also managed to answer questions correctly, but game mechanics also played a role. http://ken-jennings.com/blog/archives/2554

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

#62

Post by magarcina »

blackhole wrote: post #6

The part of the article that bothers me here the most is a leading nueroscientist asserting that the brain is not computable. That is demonstrably false: The brain is a quantum system, just like everything else in the universe. All quantum systems containing n qubits can be simulated by 2^n classical bits. It may very well be impractical to compute a decent sized brain, but that's still technically computable , which…

I'm just wondering, how does this statement make sense if we replace the "brain" with "a block of wood" since they are both a "quantum system, just like everything else in the universe":

"The part of the article that bothers me here the most is a leading lumberjack asserting that a block of wood is not computable. That is demonstrably false: a block of wood is a quantum system, just like everything else in the universe. All quantum systems containing n qubits can be simulated by 2^n classical bits. It may very well be impractical to compute a decent sized block of wood, but that's still technically computable."

What would it mean to say that a block of wood is computable?

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

#63

Post by Tichy »

jamestc wrote: post #29
nawitus wrote: post #5

>“Fallacy is what people are selling: that human nature can be reduced to [something] that [a] computer algorithm can run! This is a new church!” Actually, the "new church" is that human nature is something more than physics. Even if Kurzweil is wrong in his predictions, certainly this neuroscientist is also wrong with his metaphysical beliefs that the brain is something more than a mere "machine".

He doesn't suggest that human nature is more than physics, he is saying that consciousness isn't computable. If neural subsystems are a hierarchically arranged and internally generated chaotic dynamic activity, there is the problem of long-term predictions and causal inference. >It may seem paradoxical that a deterministic phenomenon is inherently unpredictable, but in systems that exhibit chaotic behavior, small unc…

That seems irrelevant to making a working brain thingy. We don't want to predict how another given brain will evolve, we want to mimic intelligence. Your brain evolves differently than mine, yet we both are intelligent (I think). I don't need to predict your thoughts to have thoughts of my own.

Perhaps the randomness is even necessary because otherwise some situations could never be resolved (like the classic who should go first to go through a door - after you - no, after you...).

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

#64

Post by diminoten »

pwny wrote: post #58
diminoten wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 contributi…

I'm pretty sure I am free to dismiss your contribution "simply" because you don't know what you're talking about.

But let's not get caught in the weeds here; I don't think you're correctly conveying the level of certainty with which we understand quantum mechanics. There's a ton we don't have the slightest idea about in this area of science, so let's not forget that.

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

#65

Post by jokermatt999 »

Filligree wrote: post #55
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?

Yup, Crystal Nights by Greg Egan

http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-egan/

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

#66

Post by kybernetikos »

gajomi wrote: post #20
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.

> What you're saying is merely postulation, it's not "demonstrably" true I don't think the parent disagrees with you. The question of whether or not something is _computable_ in the technical sense of the word does not need any sort of demonstration or experimental results.

Actually, when we assume that any particular physical system is computable, that's exactly what it is - an assumption, there is currently no strong evidence that all physical systems are computable, and despite the fact that it seems most people (including experts) believe that they are, it's still usually considered an open question.

> Viewed from the right angle, the CTD Principle still is shocking. All we have to do is look at it anew. How odd that there is a single physical system – albeit, an idealized system, with unbounded memory – which can be used to simulate any other system in the Universe!

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/interesting-problems-the-chur...

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

#67

Post by bermanoid »

cwzwarich wrote: post #35
blackhole wrote: post #6

The part of the article that bothers me here the most is a leading nueroscientist asserting that the brain is not computable. That is demonstrably false: The brain is a quantum system, just like everything else in the universe. All quantum systems containing n qubits can be simulated by 2^n classical bits. It may very well be impractical to compute a decent sized brain, but that's still technically computable , which…

Lots of possibilities allowed by general relativity (e.g. computers orbiting black holes and information traveling backwards through time) that may or may not correspond to our universe allow for computation beyond that of a Turing machine. Until we understand quantum gravity it seems premature to write off those possibilities. Even simpler, there is the question of whether the universe allows for arbitrary precision…

Lots of possibilities allowed by general relativity (e.g. computers orbiting black holes and information traveling backwards through time) that may or may not correspond to our universe allow for computation beyond that of a Turing machine. Until we understand quantum gravity it seems premature to write off those possibilities.

But that's completely irrelevant when it comes to the functioning of the brain, which operates in the oh so mundane medium size, medium velocity, medium energy scale which modern physics is able to model extremely accurately.

I know that a few folks (Penrose, most notably) think that quantum gravity may be relevant to the brain, but that's an extreme fringe opinion, and in Penrose's case it's practically earned him full fledged crackpot status despite his numerous indisputable successes in physics.

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

#68

Post by cwzwarich »

bermanoid wrote: post #67
cwzwarich wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of possibilities allowed by general relativity (e.g. computers orbiting black holes and information traveling backwards through time) that may or may not correspond to our universe allow for computation beyond that of a Turing machine. Until we understand quantum gravity it seems premature to write off those possibilities. Even simpler, there is the question of whether the universe allows for arbitrary precision…

Lots of possibilities allowed by general relativity (e.g. computers orbiting black holes and information traveling backwards through time) that may or may not correspond to our universe allow for computation beyond that of a Turing machine. Until we understand quantum gravity it seems premature to write off those possibilities. But that's completely irrelevant when it comes to the functioning of the brain, which oper…

While it seems unlikely that relativistic effects would play a role in the brain, the original argument also said that the same logic should apply to anything in the universe, e.g. a solar system or a galaxy, which is why I mentioned it.

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

#69

Post by Filligree »

jokermatt999 wrote: post #65
Filligree wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yup, Crystal Nights by Greg Egan http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-egan/

Right, that.

Border Guards probably counts as a sequel. I hope we'll get a novel-sized story set in that universe, eventually.

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

#70

Post by Filligree »

zmmmmm wrote: post #59
Filligree wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Perhaps our evolutionary psychology is part of the reason we exhibit what intelligence we have, not just an unnecessary relic of our past?

Dare we take the risk that it isn't?

Post reply on HN