31–40 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that you can emulate a turing machine in your mind, I'd assume that it is more than a Turing machine.
Any Universal Turing Machine can emulate any other Turing machine. That's not interesting. What would be interesting would be if human minds could solve the Halting Problem.
It feels like this article sets up something of a straw man. The analogy that a mind is like a computer is just that, an analogy . It's used to present the high-level structure of the brain in a accessible, understandable way, not as a logical argument. This analogy is not the justification for why people believe that "the mind can be replicated on a computer". And yet the article tries to disprove the latter, deep a…
To me the most convincing discussions of artificial or engineered minds start with: "human minds exist" Therefore, whatever it is that minds do is possible.
It's quite possible that we can't engineer a computer that does the same thing as the human mind because of our own limitations - the primary one being time.
That's no reason not to try though.
It feels like this article sets up something of a straw man. The analogy that a mind is like a computer is just that, an analogy . It's used to present the high-level structure of the brain in a accessible, understandable way, not as a logical argument. This analogy is not the justification for why people believe that "the mind can be replicated on a computer". And yet the article tries to disprove the latter, deep a…
But there is no evidence that we can do that. Maybe it is possible, but there is as yet zero data, nor a proven theory that says computation leads to consciousness. Of course, you might say that is like attributing a certain magical underpinning to consciousness and there is no reason to believe magic exists. But is there a logical, rational, tested theory as to why a certain level of computation should and will lead to consciousness?
It's a claim that is made, I think, with a simular amount of emotional and irrational vigor as those that say that AI will never be able to mimic the brain/mind/consciousness.
Personally, I think, if it is possible, it won't happen any time soon.
The argument in this paper comes down to "computers can't think because I don't label what they do as 'thinking'". Now if you make the argument that we're very unlikely to build a conscious machine without knowing what consciousness is, and simply assuming that it's an emergent property of complexity is probably foolish. OK. Maybe. Who knows?
It feels like this article sets up something of a straw man. The analogy that a mind is like a computer is just that, an analogy . It's used to present the high-level structure of the brain in a accessible, understandable way, not as a logical argument. This analogy is not the justification for why people believe that "the mind can be replicated on a computer". And yet the article tries to disprove the latter, deep a…
I think the issue is that AI folk believe that given enough computer power they can somehow replicate all the brain can do and create the capacity for consciousness and qualia in what is essentially a machine doing mathematics. This assumes that a certain level of computation suddenly can give rise to consciousness, which is currently the least understood part of our biology. But there is no evidence that we can do t…
And again. If "dumb" matter can become aware (us) what's to hinder AI to become?
The real answer is still. "We don't know."
It feels like this article sets up something of a straw man. The analogy that a mind is like a computer is just that, an analogy . It's used to present the high-level structure of the brain in a accessible, understandable way, not as a logical argument. This analogy is not the justification for why people believe that "the mind can be replicated on a computer". And yet the article tries to disprove the latter, deep a…
I think of maths as a bit of a mission to carefully extract the parts of the computational universe that can be reasoned about. There's heaps more kinds of processes that still run just fine (on a Turing machine, say) but whose outcome can't be predicted using less work than any other universal machine would take.
Bit off topic I guess but to me, this idea has great potential for a basis of the aspect of consciousness that's like magic. It could be irreducibly complex and inconsistent computation. Still perfectly valid, but un-analysable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming emotions are some kind of magic that happens outside of your neurons and synapses. They don't. Provided we can accurately simulate neurons, synapses and how they interact in an accurate enough way such machines could have emotions. The challenge is obviously in achieving the above.
Quoting Candace Pert, author of 'Molecules of Emotions': "For decades, most people thought of the brain and its extension the central nervous system as an electrical communication system . . . resembling a telephone system with trillions of miles of intricately crisscrossing wires." But new research techniques for studying peptides and receptors show that only 2 percent of neuronal communications are electrical, acro…
There isn't a clear scientific definition of what an emotion is, which makes discussion difficult. Having said that, they are not solely outside the brain. There are a number of views about human emotion and they do discuss the brain-body interaction (and feedback loops).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me the most convincing discussions of artificial or engineered minds start with: "human minds exist" Therefore, whatever it is that minds do is possible.
Taking that to its argument ad extremum conclusion: The universe exists therefore we can build one. It's quite possible that we can't engineer a computer that does the same thing as the human mind because of our own limitations - the primary one being time . That's no reason not to try though.
*We can build one" is not necessarily the conclusion unless we're accepting pretty abstract use of the terms we and can.
To build a universe inside this universe, universes must be capable of containing universes. To build one outside it, stuff must be capable of existing outside of it. OTOH, it seems like multiple minds can and do exist. It gets pretty loopy (and awesome) if we keep going down this rabbit hole.
The statement is intentionally tautological, or very very close to it. If minds exist then minds exist so there's no point in arguing that they can't exist.
I really wish Douglas Adams or Alan Watts or one of those guys would jump in this thread and explain.
It feels like this article sets up something of a straw man. The analogy that a mind is like a computer is just that, an analogy . It's used to present the high-level structure of the brain in a accessible, understandable way, not as a logical argument. This analogy is not the justification for why people believe that "the mind can be replicated on a computer". And yet the article tries to disprove the latter, deep a…