4 ms·

Hardware plays a massive part too; I don't see a static micro processor becoming conscious anytime soon. Our brains though are literally physical neural network

Hardware plays a massive part too; I don't see a static micro processor becoming conscious anytime soon. Our brains though are literally physical neural networks, that grow, move, and change physically all the time.

nnq 10y ago
It does not. Any kind of software can run on any kind of turing complete hardware. Unless you're one of those believing in the quantum mind theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind . Just as a human brain can simulate a microprocessor (although unusably slow and with errors), so can a microprocessor simulate a human brain (also unusable slow). Read a bit more on turing equivalence - a badly explained topic unfortunately, because you know how bad are mathematicians at explaining stuff, even if imho it should be part of junior school curricula in a simplified version. (Oh, and maybe it's brushed off because it can also lead to pretty trippy conclusions: take a cockroach brain which is likely turing complete, mount it as a cpu in some kind of computer, stuck in a maigc time-machine box that makes time run order of magnitude faster, add some really fancy input/output tech, and you could run a human mind on it... think of what the reincarnation weirdoes would milk from this :) ) I'm pretty sure that if you find a way to extract a mathematical model of a human's personality, and a way to transform it to reduce "chemical noise quircks" and other hardware dependent but unnecessary "features"/bugs, you could run it just fine on a big datacenter and have a working immortal human mind. (I'm also pessimistic enough to believe that we'll solve the "general AI" problem before solving the "mind extraction" one unfortunately. Hopefully our creations don't destroy us completely before solving problem (2) and we have time to pass on some direct immortal legacy of what it means to be "human"...) P.S. but yeah, I agree that engineering better suited hardware might be actually easier than getting the current type of hardware fast enough or than inventing the mathematical transforms needed to run a mind's set of equations on current type hardware... we're slowly getting to custom hardware for ai ( https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/05/Google-supercharges-machine-learning-tasks-with-custom-chip.html https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/05/Google-supercha... ), but I imagine the future will be more analog/clockless...
- hacker_9 10y ago
  Not saying you can't run any kind of software on turing complete hardware, but consciousness is far more that just software. The only proof of consciousness we have is that a brain is required, where software and hardware are the same thing. New thoughts are real physical connections in the brain.
  - chriswarbo 10y ago
    > but consciousness is far more that just software Citation needed. > The only proof of consciousness we have is that a brain is required I think I get what you mean, but that's going a bit too far. For example, in 1950 we could have said "consciousness requires a planet within 100 miles", then the space race would have proved us wrong: being close to a planet isn't required, it's just a coincidence, likely due to life and evolution being more likely to spontaneously occur on planets than off planets. I would say a similar thing about brains: the fact that up until now we've only seen consciousness in brains is a coincidence, likely due to complex behavioural circuitry being more likely to spontaneously occur in meat (brains) than rocks (chips). Regarding computability, current scientific understanding goes something like the following: - The universe, and everything inside it, seems to behave according to some sort of mathematical laws - The known laws of physics are definitely incomplete (e.g. we have no quantum theory of gravity, we don't have enough experimental evidence to choose between theories of dark matter and dark energy, etc.) - The known laws of physics seem to be a very good approximation in almost all 'non-extreme' circumstances (this is why we must build giant underground atom smashers if we're to find any discrepancies, and we still don't find any) - The known laws of physics are computable, i.e. we can use a turing machine to implement the known laws of physics. - Consciousness arises inside small, warm sacks of meat. - Small, warm sacks of meat are a 'non-extreme' circumstance. - Therefore, it seems highly likely that turing machines are sufficient to implement consciousness This is a non-constructive argument, it doesn't give us an example of a conscious turing machine; yet it's not much different than, say, arguing that collections of atoms can form living creatures, without giving an exact definition of "life" or a receipe for constructing a living creature out of a collection of atoms. This argument does make some assumptions, e.g. where I've said "seems to be" rather than "is"; these are areas where more research could help, but it seems unlikely that they'll yield refutations to the above argument. The burden of proof is on those arguing that consciousness is unlike anything we've ever studied. Such a refutation would have to: - Find new fundamental physics - Show that this new physics is incomputable, unlike all previous theories - Calculate a prediction from this new theory (quite tricky, since it's incomputable!), which contradicts predictions of existing theories - Test the prediction experimentally This would refute the "turing machines can implement known physics" part, but the argument might still be plausible regarding "non-extreme circumstances" (e.g. if your prediction involves black holes or other exotic situations). To refute the argument convincingly, you'd need to demonstrate that your previously unknown effect can have macroscopic consequences at ambient temperatures, pressures, in a weak gravitational field, etc. and hence may occur in the brain. Bonus points if you can demonstrate that your previously unknown, macroscopically-relevant, unlike-anything-else-in-science phenomenon has been routinely occuring inside pregnant women for millions of years (at least) without anyone noticing :)

nnq 10y ago

It does not. Any kind of software can run on any kind of turing complete hardware. Unless you're one of those believing in the quantum mind theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind . Just as a human brain can simulate a microprocessor (although unusably slow and with errors), so can a microprocessor simulate a human brain (also unusable slow). Read a bit more on turing equivalence - a badly explained topic unfortunately, because you know how bad are mathematicians at explaining stuff, even if imho it should be part of junior school curricula in a simplified version. (Oh, and maybe it's brushed off because it can also lead to pretty trippy conclusions: take a cockroach brain which is likely turing complete, mount it as a cpu in some kind of computer, stuck in a maigc time-machine box that makes time run order of magnitude faster, add some really fancy input/output tech, and you could run a human mind on it... think of what the reincarnation weirdoes would milk from this :) ) I'm pretty sure that if you find a way to extract a mathematical model of a human's personality, and a way to transform it to reduce "chemical noise quircks" and other hardware dependent but unnecessary "features"/bugs, you could run it just fine on a big datacenter and have a working immortal human mind. (I'm also pessimistic enough to believe that we'll solve the "general AI" problem before solving the "mind extraction" one unfortunately. Hopefully our creations don't destroy us completely before solving problem (2) and we have time to pass on some direct immortal legacy of what it means to be "human"...) P.S. but yeah, I agree that engineering better suited hardware might be actually easier than getting the current type of hardware fast enough or than inventing the mathematical transforms needed to run a mind's set of equations on current type hardware... we're slowly getting to custom hardware for ai ( https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/05/Google-supercharges-machine-learning-tasks-with-custom-chip.html https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2016/05/Google-supercha... ), but I imagine the future will be more analog/clockless...

hacker_9 10y ago
Not saying you can't run any kind of software on turing complete hardware, but consciousness is far more that just software. The only proof of consciousness we have is that a brain is required, where software and hardware are the same thing. New thoughts are real physical connections in the brain.
- chriswarbo 10y ago
  > but consciousness is far more that just software Citation needed. > The only proof of consciousness we have is that a brain is required I think I get what you mean, but that's going a bit too far. For example, in 1950 we could have said "consciousness requires a planet within 100 miles", then the space race would have proved us wrong: being close to a planet isn't required, it's just a coincidence, likely due to life and evolution being more likely to spontaneously occur on planets than off planets. I would say a similar thing about brains: the fact that up until now we've only seen consciousness in brains is a coincidence, likely due to complex behavioural circuitry being more likely to spontaneously occur in meat (brains) than rocks (chips). Regarding computability, current scientific understanding goes something like the following: - The universe, and everything inside it, seems to behave according to some sort of mathematical laws - The known laws of physics are definitely incomplete (e.g. we have no quantum theory of gravity, we don't have enough experimental evidence to choose between theories of dark matter and dark energy, etc.) - The known laws of physics seem to be a very good approximation in almost all 'non-extreme' circumstances (this is why we must build giant underground atom smashers if we're to find any discrepancies, and we still don't find any) - The known laws of physics are computable, i.e. we can use a turing machine to implement the known laws of physics. - Consciousness arises inside small, warm sacks of meat. - Small, warm sacks of meat are a 'non-extreme' circumstance. - Therefore, it seems highly likely that turing machines are sufficient to implement consciousness This is a non-constructive argument, it doesn't give us an example of a conscious turing machine; yet it's not much different than, say, arguing that collections of atoms can form living creatures, without giving an exact definition of "life" or a receipe for constructing a living creature out of a collection of atoms. This argument does make some assumptions, e.g. where I've said "seems to be" rather than "is"; these are areas where more research could help, but it seems unlikely that they'll yield refutations to the above argument. The burden of proof is on those arguing that consciousness is unlike anything we've ever studied. Such a refutation would have to: - Find new fundamental physics - Show that this new physics is incomputable, unlike all previous theories - Calculate a prediction from this new theory (quite tricky, since it's incomputable!), which contradicts predictions of existing theories - Test the prediction experimentally This would refute the "turing machines can implement known physics" part, but the argument might still be plausible regarding "non-extreme circumstances" (e.g. if your prediction involves black holes or other exotic situations). To refute the argument convincingly, you'd need to demonstrate that your previously unknown effect can have macroscopic consequences at ambient temperatures, pressures, in a weak gravitational field, etc. and hence may occur in the brain. Bonus points if you can demonstrate that your previously unknown, macroscopically-relevant, unlike-anything-else-in-science phenomenon has been routinely occuring inside pregnant women for millions of years (at least) without anyone noticing :)