Now, *why* Turing-completness *wouldn't* be enough?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Lamech

But the point would still stand randomness affects the brain.

Sure, random error affects the brain; whether or not QM does so, you're going to get the occasional glitch from cosmic rays. Same for computers. My point is that as far as we can tell randomness isn't necessary to the function of the brain.

[Jeffr0]

Originally Posted by Xplo

Her claims aren't metaphysical, merely physical. They're consistent with accepted science.

You are wrong on on both counts.

If you are making claims that hinge on some sort of strong, materialistic viewpoint... then you are in fact making a metaphysical claim.

Real scientists understand that expertise in their narrow disciplines do not give them the authority to make sweeping philosophical proclamations outside the scope of their experimental results. Honest scientists understand the limitations of their discipline and acknowlege the philosophical axioms that underly their models and world views. They certainly don't wander around bullying random people with appeals to "scientific consensus" and "accepted science."

Beat up straw men as you wish... act as thugish as you like... but don't try to act morally superior simply because you're too religious to bother defending your position. The question raised in this thread is a philosphical question that necessarily begs a philisophical answer.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Xplo

Kindly go away until you have your own explanation for how humans work and some supporting evidence for your position.

I have to agree that you seem to have overreacted.

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by Jeffr0

If you are making claims that hinge on some sort of strong, materialistic viewpoint... then you are in fact making a metaphysical claim.

Actually, she was making a claim based on empirical evidence. It is perfectly possible for humans to be what they are simply because they're walking Turing machines, and there's nothing to suggest that they are more than walking Turing machines.

You're the one throwing up objections with no proof that the materialistic viewpoint is incorrect and (more importantly) no answer to the question posed by the thread topic.

Real scientists...

Please spare us all your observations about what "real scientists" are or do, since it is clear (below) that you don't know what science is.

Beat up straw men as you wish... act as thugish as you like... but don't try to act morally superior simply because you're too religious to bother defending your position.

Science is evidence. It is falsifiable. It adapts to new information.
Religion is faith. It denies falsifiability and rejects new information.

You are the religious zealot here, not I.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I have to agree that you seem to have overreacted.

Do you consider Jeffr0's unsupported, unproductive skepticism and ignorant blathering about science-as-religion valuable? Should he continue in this mode?

[Kromm]

This discussion is becoming personal and generating complaints even from the lurkers. Please keep it on-topic and away from attacks on the participants' worldviews. The alternative is thread closure and bans. Thank you.

[gjc8]

A materialist viewpoint isn't a religious claim. It's the simplest explanation, the default explanation. Unless there's something that the physical processes of the brain CANNOT explain, there's no reason to hypothesize something else is involved.

Clearly, the physical processes of the brain are involved in creating intelligence. Destroy the brain, and the intelligence is destroyed (or at least moved, if you're hypothesizing souls and so forth). Is there anything else involved? Well, we haven't DETECTED anything else, so there's no direct evidence.

We don't have a clear model for how you get from "neurons, etc" to "consciousness". But we don't have a clear model for "neurons, soul, etc" to consciousness, either. "Physical processes in the brain [act in mysterious ways] to give rise to consciousness" isn't any worse an explanation than "Physical processes and [mysterious other things] [act in mysterious ways] to give rise to consciousness".

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Jeffr0

You are wrong on on both counts.

No, current science is materialistic; if consciousness fits into physics as we understand it, it can be emulated by a universal Turing machine plus a source of randomness. I agree that the OP is begging the question, because I doubt people who object to AI think that the mind is a finite deterministic algorithm, but if the brain is a physical system, the mind actually arises from the brain, and the physics involved work the way we think they do, it must be possible to emulate it on a Turing machine. Any of those presumptions could be wrong, but represent non-scientific assumptions if so.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Xplo

Do you consider Jeffr0's unsupported, unproductive skepticism and ignorant blathering about science-as-religion valuable? Should he continue in this mode?

I consider his skepticism to be impossible for me to agree with it in certain already-mentioned points. But I'm trying to keep an open mind, and listen to Jeffr0's posts, despite this disagreement. Perhaps there will be a logical argument that will change my mind - I cannot know.

Either the program of believing in possibility of AI keeps running indefinitely, or it stops. :)

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Jeffr0

Wait a minute.

Are you saying that you actually believe that humans are merely organic Turing-complete machines.

And that you can simply fold your arms... and smugly wait for someone to provide evidence to the contrary... when you provide no case or evidence for your own expansive, metaphysical claims...?

Wow.

(Are you really a person? Or are you a program created by SJG to help manage these boards...? Because frankly... only a machine could put forward such claims with a straight face!!)

It's actually the people who say that humans have some magical ability that we can not and will not ever be able to reproduce that need to provide evidence. Supernatural elements are required for the supposition that artificial intelligence is impossible.

However, that doesn't mean that any Turing-complete computer can simulate AI - if I remember right, there are some algorithms (such as quantum computational ones) that Turing-complete machines can not utilize. That just means you need to create a machine that can perform the same operations as the human brain, of course, but with infinite resources and time that shouldn't prove impossible.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Langy

However, that doesn't mean that any Turing-complete computer can simulate AI - if I remember right, there are some algorithms (such as quantum computational ones) that Turing-complete machines can not utilize.

They just can't utilize those algorithms in an efficient manner. It's quite probable that a conventional digital computer is not optimal hardware for running a brain emulation, since the brain appears to be massively parallel, not serial.