05-23-2011, 12:15 PM | #11 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Now, *why* Turing-completness *wouldn't* be enough?
I'm pretty sure that's not Ze's position. He's an atheist, AFAIK. He seems to think that the hardware is what's important and that it's not superscience to have AI; just that it's superscience to treat one set of hardware and software as a copy of another set. Or something like that. It's confusing. Like I said, I'm pretty sure he's what my Grandma calls "ornery".
|
05-23-2011, 12:17 PM | #12 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Now, *why* Turing-completness *wouldn't* be enough?
Quote:
|
|
05-23-2011, 12:23 PM | #13 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Now, *why* Turing-completness *wouldn't* be enough?
Doesn't matter for purposes of this argument. If the mind is a finite deterministic algorithm, it can be modeled by a turing machine, and therefore if you hold that turing-completeness is not sufficient for a mind, you must also hold that the mind is not a finite deterministic algorithm.
|
05-23-2011, 12:37 PM | #14 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Now, *why* Turing-completness *wouldn't* be enough?
|
05-23-2011, 01:13 PM | #15 |
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Harrisonburg VA
|
Re: Now, *why* Turing-completness *wouldn't* be enough?
One argument against this goes something like this:
1) Hilbert was overly optimistic about the capabilities of mathematics. 2) Godel showed that mathemetics has counter-intuitive limits. (Ie, there are things that you can know to be true, but that you cannot prove to be true within the context of particular axiomatic systems. 3) Infinite numbers behave strangely-- and the diagonal proof is positively mind blowing when applied to Godel's proof and also to Turing machines. Therefore... 4) Since math is weird and strangely limited... and since 19th century ideas about the universe are wrong... you cannot make a computer that is truly intelligent. Yeah... it's a goofy argument, but it is enough to sell a few books. You can sell even more if you can tie some physics into it, but I can't really speak to that part at all. [This is a summary of about half of one of Roger Penrose's books. He is the discoverer of Penrose tiles.] |
05-23-2011, 10:13 PM | #16 | |
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
Re: Now, *why* Turing-completness *wouldn't* be enough?
Quote:
He didn't really have any proof, but my 3rd-hand, ten years of hazy recollection later understanding of the argument was that he pointed to quantum calculations as being non-random and non-deterministic. (Even then, I suppose you could simulate a mind using some kind of markov chain to simulate a random distribution without actually reproducing it). I don't buy the idea, and even if it were true then you'd presumably be able to emulate a brain using a quantum computer, but it's a cool hypothesis. |
|
05-23-2011, 10:39 PM | #17 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Now, *why* Turing-completness *wouldn't* be enough?
Well, that's certainly enough classify it as gibberish. QM defines statistical probabilities and every evidence we have is that is that it's random within the computed distribution pattern.
|
05-24-2011, 06:37 AM | #18 |
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Harrisonburg VA
|
Re: Now, *why* Turing-completness *wouldn't* be enough?
The Chinese room thought experiement is a famous argument.
(Note that... Eliza is a completely stupid program that didn't understand anything... but people poured their hearts out to it and talked to it as if it was real.) |
05-24-2011, 06:51 AM | #19 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Now, *why* Turing-completness *wouldn't* be enough?
Quote:
|
|
05-24-2011, 07:04 AM | #20 |
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Harrisonburg VA
|
Re: Now, *why* Turing-completness *wouldn't* be enough?
I am a programmer.
I write algorithms every day. They are the stupidest, most un-aware things I can imagine. The only reason people think AI is possible is because of romanticism surrounding the computer. It's the sort of thing people felt in the early eighties-- like the guys who made Tron but had no idea what was going on in computers. This is 19th century romanticism displaced to a new medium. Replace computer with clockwork and you'd have a better example to argue-- can a clockwork be made to think/feel?? |
Tags |
ghosts, infomorphs, sai, superscience, turing-completeness |
|
|