9 ms·

For an intelligent response to Penrose see Scott Aaronson : http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2756 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2756. Aaronson recog

by dzdt 9y ago

For an intelligent response to Penrose see Scott Aaronson : http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2756 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2756. Aaronson recognizes Penrose's genius while still disagreeing vigorously with his out-of-the-mainstream ideas. One of the many reasons I admire Roger is that, out of all the AI skeptics on earth, he’s virtually the only one who’s actually tried to meet this burden, as I understand it! He, nearly alone, did what I think all AI skeptics should do, which is: suggest some actual physical property of the brain that, if present, would make it qualitatively different from all existing computers, in the sense of violating the Church-Turing Thesis. Indeed, he’s one of the few AI skeptics who even understands what meeting this burden would entail: that you can’t do it with the physics we already know, that some new ingredient is necessary.

ithkuil 9y ago
related read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City
HONEST_ANNIE 9y ago
Penrose is unique genius. His deep geometric intuition is extremely rare even among mathematicians. He uses his superior geometric intuition to teach physics in the book "Road to Reality" in a level that surpasses even Feynman. There is common underlying assumption that the hard problem of consciousness is tied to high level cognitive or computational capabilities. I don't see the connection. The crux of being conscious is having the cognitive ability of being aware-consiouns-attentative-reflective at least tiny amount of time. If we could scientifically determine/agree what consciousness is, we should be able to make nice hyper-aware-of-blue-and-knowing-it robot and it would be relatively simple one.
- Koshkin 9y ago
  Well, you can learn physics from Feynman. In order to read (and understand) Penrose, you need to already know physics (and math).
ABCLAW 9y ago
Aaronson spends far too little time using the real cannons he's leveling at Penrose. He is attempting to down a tree by focusing snipping roots individually instead of just pushing the rotting trunk over. Penrose's argument is hollow. We understand the biophysics behind how the brain works. They aren't complicated at the level of detail you need to understand how the system works. We understand how neurons interact with each other. The evidence is consistent not only with our well settled understanding of chemical and biological systems, but also increasingly consistent with our development of information systems at scale. The real gap is whether or not the totality of 'consciousness' is really just neural interactions at scale + starting state data, but the more we learn, the more that mystery vanishes. We understand the low-level perceptor->analysis models much better now, and we can map perceptor inputs at scale to outcomes in model tuning. In short, the consciousness of the gaps is rapidly losing his hiding spots. Penrose's argument is taken seriously because we have collectively created a tremendous philosophical and institutional infrastructure around the idea of free will and the theory he attacks strongly implies there is some level of determinism in our cognitive systems. Since he is irreproachable on a personal or intellectual peerage level, he is a fantastic champion of this counter-cultural perspective. However, if we apply even the barest of epistemological tools to the issue, we rapidly recognize that even if Penrose is correct, the chance of his position being accurate is so remote and so unverifiable so as to be useless. But the existence of a counter-argument against the deterministic mind itself, absent of its validity, is itself useful. It allows us to collectively hem and haw before changing our views and institutions to fit our understanding of how people work. Which means Penrose's argument is not going away anytime soon.
- sgt101 9y ago
  Hello >However, if we apply even the barest of epistemological tools to the issue, we rapidly recognize that even if Penrose is correct, the chance of his position being accurate is so remote and so unverifiable so as to be useless. You are saying that if he is right then it's probably not accurate? >But the existence of a counter-argument against the deterministic mind itself, absent of its validity, is itself useful. It allows us to collectively hem and haw before changing our views and institutions to fit our understanding of how people work. Which means Penrose's argument is not going away anytime soon. if the mind is deterministic how can we change our views - how can the position be useful? Things are, and you will, or will not.
mannykannot 9y ago
A complementary thing I like about Aaronson's response is that he does the same for his side of the argument: He acknowledges that there are difficult and unsolved issues for the strong AI viewpoint. When a proponent of either side minimizes, or tries to avoid, the gaps and difficulties with his point of view, he creates a straw man for the other side to attack, and a battle between straw men will not lead to meaningful progress.

by dzdt 9y ago

ithkuil 9y ago

related read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City

HONEST_ANNIE 9y ago

Penrose is unique genius. His deep geometric intuition is extremely rare even among mathematicians. He uses his superior geometric intuition to teach physics in the book "Road to Reality" in a level that surpasses even Feynman. There is common underlying assumption that the hard problem of consciousness is tied to high level cognitive or computational capabilities. I don't see the connection. The crux of being conscious is having the cognitive ability of being aware-consiouns-attentative-reflective at least tiny amount of time. If we could scientifically determine/agree what consciousness is, we should be able to make nice hyper-aware-of-blue-and-knowing-it robot and it would be relatively simple one.

Koshkin 9y ago
Well, you can learn physics from Feynman. In order to read (and understand) Penrose, you need to already know physics (and math).

ABCLAW 9y ago

Aaronson spends far too little time using the real cannons he's leveling at Penrose. He is attempting to down a tree by focusing snipping roots individually instead of just pushing the rotting trunk over. Penrose's argument is hollow. We understand the biophysics behind how the brain works. They aren't complicated at the level of detail you need to understand how the system works. We understand how neurons interact with each other. The evidence is consistent not only with our well settled understanding of chemical and biological systems, but also increasingly consistent with our development of information systems at scale. The real gap is whether or not the totality of 'consciousness' is really just neural interactions at scale + starting state data, but the more we learn, the more that mystery vanishes. We understand the low-level perceptor->analysis models much better now, and we can map perceptor inputs at scale to outcomes in model tuning. In short, the consciousness of the gaps is rapidly losing his hiding spots. Penrose's argument is taken seriously because we have collectively created a tremendous philosophical and institutional infrastructure around the idea of free will and the theory he attacks strongly implies there is some level of determinism in our cognitive systems. Since he is irreproachable on a personal or intellectual peerage level, he is a fantastic champion of this counter-cultural perspective. However, if we apply even the barest of epistemological tools to the issue, we rapidly recognize that even if Penrose is correct, the chance of his position being accurate is so remote and so unverifiable so as to be useless. But the existence of a counter-argument against the deterministic mind itself, absent of its validity, is itself useful. It allows us to collectively hem and haw before changing our views and institutions to fit our understanding of how people work. Which means Penrose's argument is not going away anytime soon.

sgt101 9y ago
Hello >However, if we apply even the barest of epistemological tools to the issue, we rapidly recognize that even if Penrose is correct, the chance of his position being accurate is so remote and so unverifiable so as to be useless. You are saying that if he is right then it's probably not accurate? >But the existence of a counter-argument against the deterministic mind itself, absent of its validity, is itself useful. It allows us to collectively hem and haw before changing our views and institutions to fit our understanding of how people work. Which means Penrose's argument is not going away anytime soon. if the mind is deterministic how can we change our views - how can the position be useful? Things are, and you will, or will not.

mannykannot 9y ago

A complementary thing I like about Aaronson's response is that he does the same for his side of the argument: He acknowledges that there are difficult and unsolved issues for the strong AI viewpoint. When a proponent of either side minimizes, or tries to avoid, the gaps and difficulties with his point of view, he creates a straw man for the other side to attack, and a battle between straw men will not lead to meaningful progress.