3 ms·
This has been addressed by many authors since modern computation was formulated, for example by Turing himself. We learn about and discuss Newell and Simon's Ph
by robotresearcher 7y ago
This has been addressed by many authors since modern computation was formulated, for example by Turing himself. We learn about and discuss Newell and Simon's Physical Symbol System hypothesis in undergrad classes, ie. explicitly stating the underlying assumption. Once in a while someone will assert that computation is not sufficient, eg. Penrose, and generate discussion.
In practice you can work on AI-the-engineering-discipline without taking a position on this. Perhaps this is why you feel that researchers don't talk about it. Disciplined scientists tend not to take public positions on things they don't know for sure.
- quikoa 7y agoIt could be possible that it's computable from a theoretic perspective but not a practical one. After all our biological brains are quite different from our electrical computer chips.
- yters 7y agoThat seems like a pretty uninformed hypothesis. For example, halting oracles can process symbols, but are not computable. So, maybe it is necessary, but easy to show symbol processing may not be sufficient (as I just did). This has significant implications for the engineering discipline. For example, if the mind is a halting oracle, then you can get much more performant algorithms by incorporating human interaction.