4 ms·
I didn't realise people were making these arguments back in the sixties. I came across this in Penrose's much more recent books "The Emperor's New Mind" and to
by fancyfredbot 7y ago
I didn't realise people were making these arguments back in the sixties. I came across this in Penrose's much more recent books "The Emperor's New Mind" and to a lesser extent "The Shadow Of The Mind" which make similar arguments to this paper, appealing to incompleteness (and in the second book quantum mechanics) to argue against strong AI. Both books are well worth reading, but since I understand Turing machines are able to stimulate both quantum and classical machines I found it hard to find them truly convincing.
- deepnet 7y agoIt is a question of efficiency, our brains run on about 15 Watts. Quantum computers offer many orders of magnitude of efficiency by a (handwavy) 'searching the whole solution space' sort of ultimate parallelism. The new field of Quantum Biology[1] shows that many biological processes exploit quantum effects, e.g. enzymes exploiting quantum tunelling to unknot proteins, robin's direction sense, photon pathfinding to reaction centre in photosynthesis. It is therefore not entirely unlikely that brain's exploit various quantum effects to make thinking much more efficient. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qgSz1UmcBM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qgSz1UmcBM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwgQVZju1ZM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwgQVZju1ZM
- fancyfredbot 7y agoYes, "Can a computer think?", and "Can a computer think efficiently?" are two closely related questions you'd reason about in very different ways. I feel like the paper and the books are really asking the first question and not the second. The second question is also very interesting! If quantum effects are involved then a classical computer might never be able to "think" efficiently.