3 ms·
>However, there is no reason future computers will be limited to current (Turing) technology instead of being a collection of many co-processors with differing
by marcoperaza 9y ago
>However, there is no reason future computers will be limited to current (Turing) technology instead of being a collection of many co-processors with differing capabilities.
That would violate the Church-Turing thesis, which is pretty widely accepted, unless the universe itself is a hypercomputer that we can leverage to perform computation.
- tux1968 9y agoYou're essentially saying that our brains can't exist. But they do, and we can copy them, what is the problem with making a synthetic brain? Why is the natural brain an allowed exception, but the one we make is not allowed? Edit: On the one hand you want to use Church-Turing to invalidate the possibility of us creating non-Turing based technology, and yet in a previous post you claimed the human brain likely violates Church-Turing. So which is it? Is reality allowed to violate Church-Turing or is it not? If you honestly believe that the human brain violates Church-Turing, then you have to explain why you also believe that we can not copy the brain and achieve the same result ourselves.
- marcoperaza 9y agoIf the universe is not computable, and if the non-computable aspects are relevant to the functioning of the human brain, then our ability to build a brain simulation is strongly limited. A functioning synthetic brain would have to leverage the same relevant natural phenomenon as a real brain; a mathematical simulation running on a standard computer would not suffice. I do think that I actually agree with your earlier point that once we have a functioning synthetic brain, we can ignore subjective experience itself and just focus on its functional implications for the entire system.