11–20 of 37 posts
If this were true, would it mean that there are aspects in physics which are not mere abstractions of math?
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." E. Dijkstra
Penrose and his book have been debunked. http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~llandau/Homepage/Math/penrose.html
'have been debunked' - quite an emotionally laden phrase to introduce what is in fact an opposing view by another mathematician don't you think? The hostility the Strong AI camp have for Penrose's views is fascinating - it must be infuriating to have such a respected mathematician and physicist take the time to write a few books refuting the reductionist approach. There certainly seems to be no room for a contrarian…
But that doesn't mean we can't create a computer that can have similar noncomputational "thoughts".
People must choose, when a computer need not choose. What I mean is, a computer can shut down. A human mind cannot -- and continue to live. When a computer "observes" -- so to speak -- stimuli it cannot handle or are beyond its capacity, it does not make random choices about what to do now. We do not trust randomness. Sometimes, however, humans have no option but randomness. This is why in a crowd of 100 each one will react differently to the same stimulus. If it suddenly gets very cold, some will shiver, some will leave, some will get up and jump around.
In most cases, Computer systems aren't even allowed to accept input that isn't known to be valid. Minds have to all the time.
When you begin to predict the future and that's largely what the human mind is -- a future prediction machine, then it becomes even more complex. It requires memory. Concoctions from memory or assumptions. We don't let computers assume.
In many ways, we are holding computers back. Because we are afraid. We are afraid of what they will decide for us. We are afraid of random. We need control. We haven't subjected computers to survival of the fittest.
If we did, then by the law of large numbers, eventually, like I suppose is true with many humans, one will survive that we can't explain how. We won't know how that computer made all the right decisions the whole time.
We don't know how to program computers to accept any input. White is the maximum color. Black is the darkest. But computers could see much darker than black and much brighter than white. How can we control something like that? We can't. We won't be able to. It will see and know thinks we can't imagine.
It's silly to think computers can't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you elaborate on "... given that humans can prove statements that are true in a system that can't be reducible to a computable set of axioms ..."? Perhaps with an example?
From Wikipedia: The true but unprovable statement referred to by the theorem is often referred to as “the Gödel sentence” for the theory. It is not unique; there are infinitely many statements in the language of the theory that share the property of being true but unprovable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness#S...
Penrose and his book have been debunked. http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~llandau/Homepage/Math/penrose.html
'have been debunked' - quite an emotionally laden phrase to introduce what is in fact an opposing view by another mathematician don't you think? The hostility the Strong AI camp have for Penrose's views is fascinating - it must be infuriating to have such a respected mathematician and physicist take the time to write a few books refuting the reductionist approach. There certainly seems to be no room for a contrarian…
I believe in eventual real AI, but I would guess that it will not be on current computer hardware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you elaborate on "... given that humans can prove statements that are true in a system that can't be reducible to a computable set of axioms ..."? Perhaps with an example?
From Wikipedia: The true but unprovable statement referred to by the theorem is often referred to as “the Gödel sentence” for the theory. It is not unique; there are infinitely many statements in the language of the theory that share the property of being true but unprovable.