9 ms·
That's a false dichotomy. CPUs can run all sorts of programs, some of which can be self-aware agents for all we know.
by red75prime 8y ago
That's a false dichotomy. CPUs can run all sorts of programs, some of which can be self-aware agents for all we know.
- chris_wot 8y agoName one program that is a self-aware agent.
- rebuilder 8y agoHow would you know? ;)
- chris_wot 8y agoA fair point.
- red75prime 8y agoDoes it work that way? I think you need to prove that self-awareness requires super-Turing computations or is computationally intractable on classical computers to assert that no such program can ever exist.
- naasking 8y ago> Name one program that is a self-aware agent. Name one program that is written in the programming language that eventually displaces C/C++ as the system language of choice. Don't you see how inane this question is? On balance of evidence, consciousness is reducible to an algorithm unless you want to actually allow consciousness into your ontology.
- nsxwolf 8y agoWhat's the evidence that consciousness is reducible to an algorithm again?
- mikeash 8y agoKnown physics is computible, and consciousness appears to be a physical phenomenon (it changes or stops when various physical things are done to the brain).
- shanghaiaway 8y agoConsciousness does not appear to be a physical phenomenon because physics cannot explain it.
- simsla 8y ago"Name me one X" is not a proper counter to "X might be possible, we haven't ruled it out." There are tons of things that have been created/observed/proven only in the last 100 years. The fact that Bob from the year 1700 wasn't able to put on a demonstration didn't make them false.
- mistermann 8y ago> "Name me one X" is not a proper counter to "X might be possible, we haven't ruled it out." Is there a term for this (is it simply one of the items in the list of logical fallacies), because holy cow I find the need to point this out several times a day, and it seems to be becoming much more common recently.
- chris_wot 8y agoThere might be a term for it, but I didn't say there wasn't one, only I was curious what program was self-aware as I wasn't aware that one existed! If one does exist, then that would be truly remarkable.
- hliyan 8y agoNot unless we can reduce self-awareness to an algorithm, which I don't think we can. We can, however, reduce the appearance of self-awareness down to an algorithm.
- red75prime 8y agoI think there's nothing in self-awareness beyond specifically structured information processing, and such processing is self-awareness. But this position is hard to argue for or against, so I'll leave it at that.
- kazinator 8y agoThe fascinating thing is that complex information processing in the brain doesn't cease when you're unconscious.
- red75prime 8y agoIt changes though, and significantly so. Even EEG (which isn't neuron level precise) shows the changes.
- Mahn 8y agoThere's no evidence that we cannot reduce self-awareness to an algorithm.
- naasking 8y ago> Not unless we can reduce self-awareness to an algorithm, which I don't think we can. By the Bekenstein Bound, the human brain is at best a finite state automoton. Unless you wish to appeal to some supernatural element in consciousness, like dualism, consciousness is reducible to an algorithm.
- hliyan 8y agoa. I don't think the Bekenstein Bound is relevant here. b. The commenter below has a point. We don't know whether consciousness is theoretically reducible to an algorithm or not. All we know is that we can't at the moment, and we don't even know where to begin. So the answer is unknown.
- mikeash 8y agoThat just means the difference is what software it runs.