4 ms·

You should know that Sir Roger Penrose wrote a book over thirty years ago that asserts human like intelligence is non-algorithmic, that is, unable to be simulat

You should know that Sir Roger Penrose wrote a book over thirty years ago that asserts human like intelligence is non-algorithmic, that is, unable to be simulated on a Turing Machine. Hence, the article linked to is probably right. I, much less Penrose, have anything in common with the Discovery Institute, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong in their conclusions. Their ahem “methods” may be a bit suspect as well. To learn more read “The Emperor’s New Mind”. It’s quite a book! A good addition to your summer reading list. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Mind https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Mind

balfirevic 4y ago
> Hence, the article linked to is probably right. Only if Penrose's argument is probably right, which you seem to have taken for granted here.
- ozim 4y ago
  Ugh... I don't need Penrose - you still have training set for AI. Humans don't have rigid specified training set, training human to live takes at least 20 years. Each human has really exceptional path and there is no way to train two humans in exactly the same way even if they are identical twins. Tell me how you do the same result with neural net that is trained in let's say 6 months, amount of data is not there. Mostly neural nets are trained on images or on sounds - humans are trained on images/sounds/touch/smell/taste/emotions for years.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    Our networks are continuously trained and never (major pathologies excepted) cease to be trained. OTOH, a digital network can absorb inputs at a much faster signalling rate than biological ones. Digital networks also don’t try to replicate all aspects of biological brains and are a somewhat crude approximation of their biological counterparts.
rbanffy 4y ago
I read it, and I remain unconvinced. Quantum processes may introduce noise, or may result in actual useful computation that’s unique to organic brains, but still it is a form of computation, as much as anything that behaves according to natural laws are bound to them. I’m not sure exactly what Penrose was on to in that book, honestly.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  Funny that two rebuttals against the argument in the article are: 1. Attacking the source (Discovery Institute) 2. "I remain unconvinced" when you can't attack the source (freaking Roger Penrose, lol) > I’m not sure exactly what Penrose was on to in that book, honestly. It is quite clear: he distinguishes between Turing computation (which non Quantum physics captures well) and super-Turing computation (which needs the mechanism in ORCH-OR). I am not saying Penrose is correct but let us not resort to logical fallacies and straw men. It is exhausting.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    > freaking Roger Penrose Unless he is an expert on cognition or neurobiology, which he isn’t, I still think his opinion has no more value than mine and certainly has less value than that of a field expert. And you did resort to a logical fallacy in that.
    - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
      > And you did resort to a logical fallacy in that. False. You should read my comment again or at least a few more times to understand the (relatively simple) point I was trying to make. I was saying you couldn't employ ad hominem against Penrose because it was not easy for you to do so.
dtagames 4y ago
We are so far away from understanding "thought" that I doubt we'll ever get there. We can't even explain how quantum physics gives rise to Newtonian physics, and those are both observable where "thought" is not! It seems obvious that cognition/intelligence or whatever we want to call it is non-Turing because we simply cannot reproduce it with a Turing machine. Quantum computing here just makes things worse.
leephillips 4y ago
It is an interesting book, and worth reading. He argues, as you say, that we do things with our brains that can not be reproduced using algorithms. He bases the argument mainly, if I recall correctly, on the incompleteness theorems: we can apprehend certain statements in mathematics as “true” even though they can’t be proven within the system of definitions and axioms in which the statements are made. However, this conclusion, whether it is ultimately defensible or not, is about replicating the human thought process with algorithms. It does not exclude the creation of machines that can do everything we can do. They just wouldn’t accomplish this through the execution of what we conventionally think of as computer programs.
- rabbits77 4y ago
  If you believe that current AI implementations are capable of this sort of “everything we can do but differently” then I would be curious as to why nobody has made any progress whatsoever in the understanding of consciousness? Are we to believe that humans are now able to replicate many of their own conscious abilities but with no real understanding of the mechanisms? A grid search of TensorFlow functions mashed together in different combinations could have done the same thing? I am starting to feel like I am playing a Gary Marcus role here in this thread, against a mob of overly optimistic connectionists. (that may be too generous, I imagine many in this thread have no implementation experience with AI, just a Reader’s Digest level of understanding)
  - leephillips 4y ago
    > If you believe that current AI implementations are capable of this sort of “everything we can do but differently” Surely nobody believes that. > progress whatsoever in the understanding of consciousness How would we know if we’d made this progress? How do you know if any other person other than yourself is conscious? (I think this is called the “zombie problem”.)
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      How do I know I am conscious and my perception of my own consciousness isn’t an illusion itself? We currently believe consciousness is an emerging phenomenon that happens to any sufficiently complex brain that posses the ability to gather and remember knowledge about itself and the organism that holds it. I’m sure our first contact with alien intelligence will be extremely puzzling at first, then profoundly horrifying, and, finally, deeply enlightening.
atty 4y ago
The overview didn’t give too many details so hopefully I’m not arguing against too much of a straw man, but I don’t find the idea that certain physical processes mean we are fundamentally different is sound. By their very nature, those are processes that can be studied and replicated either in hardware, wetware, or pure simulation. If it’s “randomness” from quantum mechanics, then we introduce an RNG. If it’s the process of wave function collapse, then we use a quantum computer. Etc, etc.
raverbashing 4y ago
Not being algorithmic doesn't mean it can't be simulated or duplicated (example, chaotic systems can and are simulated all the time) But apart from that, the argument will be settled by someone that might manage to duplicate that. Or gives a more detailed and founded objection (Penrose missed all recent neuroscience discoveries for example). Until that happens, Penrose's book is more a strong opinion than anything else Or, another possibility is that it is unable to be simulated fully but the simulated version is close enough for most purposes (including running Skynet or the Paperclip maximizer). Or plug a quantum computer to your machine and then it is fully able to be simulated.

balfirevic 4y ago

> Hence, the article linked to is probably right. Only if Penrose's argument is probably right, which you seem to have taken for granted here.

ozim 4y ago
Ugh... I don't need Penrose - you still have training set for AI. Humans don't have rigid specified training set, training human to live takes at least 20 years. Each human has really exceptional path and there is no way to train two humans in exactly the same way even if they are identical twins. Tell me how you do the same result with neural net that is trained in let's say 6 months, amount of data is not there. Mostly neural nets are trained on images or on sounds - humans are trained on images/sounds/touch/smell/taste/emotions for years.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  Our networks are continuously trained and never (major pathologies excepted) cease to be trained. OTOH, a digital network can absorb inputs at a much faster signalling rate than biological ones. Digital networks also don’t try to replicate all aspects of biological brains and are a somewhat crude approximation of their biological counterparts.

rbanffy 4y ago

I read it, and I remain unconvinced. Quantum processes may introduce noise, or may result in actual useful computation that’s unique to organic brains, but still it is a form of computation, as much as anything that behaves according to natural laws are bound to them. I’m not sure exactly what Penrose was on to in that book, honestly.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago
Funny that two rebuttals against the argument in the article are: 1. Attacking the source (Discovery Institute) 2. "I remain unconvinced" when you can't attack the source (freaking Roger Penrose, lol) > I’m not sure exactly what Penrose was on to in that book, honestly. It is quite clear: he distinguishes between Turing computation (which non Quantum physics captures well) and super-Turing computation (which needs the mechanism in ORCH-OR). I am not saying Penrose is correct but let us not resort to logical fallacies and straw men. It is exhausting.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  > freaking Roger Penrose Unless he is an expert on cognition or neurobiology, which he isn’t, I still think his opinion has no more value than mine and certainly has less value than that of a field expert. And you did resort to a logical fallacy in that.
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    > And you did resort to a logical fallacy in that. False. You should read my comment again or at least a few more times to understand the (relatively simple) point I was trying to make. I was saying you couldn't employ ad hominem against Penrose because it was not easy for you to do so.

dtagames 4y ago

We are so far away from understanding "thought" that I doubt we'll ever get there. We can't even explain how quantum physics gives rise to Newtonian physics, and those are both observable where "thought" is not! It seems obvious that cognition/intelligence or whatever we want to call it is non-Turing because we simply cannot reproduce it with a Turing machine. Quantum computing here just makes things worse.

leephillips 4y ago

It is an interesting book, and worth reading. He argues, as you say, that we do things with our brains that can not be reproduced using algorithms. He bases the argument mainly, if I recall correctly, on the incompleteness theorems: we can apprehend certain statements in mathematics as “true” even though they can’t be proven within the system of definitions and axioms in which the statements are made. However, this conclusion, whether it is ultimately defensible or not, is about replicating the human thought process with algorithms. It does not exclude the creation of machines that can do everything we can do. They just wouldn’t accomplish this through the execution of what we conventionally think of as computer programs.

rabbits77 4y ago
If you believe that current AI implementations are capable of this sort of “everything we can do but differently” then I would be curious as to why nobody has made any progress whatsoever in the understanding of consciousness? Are we to believe that humans are now able to replicate many of their own conscious abilities but with no real understanding of the mechanisms? A grid search of TensorFlow functions mashed together in different combinations could have done the same thing? I am starting to feel like I am playing a Gary Marcus role here in this thread, against a mob of overly optimistic connectionists. (that may be too generous, I imagine many in this thread have no implementation experience with AI, just a Reader’s Digest level of understanding)
- leephillips 4y ago
  > If you believe that current AI implementations are capable of this sort of “everything we can do but differently” Surely nobody believes that. > progress whatsoever in the understanding of consciousness How would we know if we’d made this progress? How do you know if any other person other than yourself is conscious? (I think this is called the “zombie problem”.)
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    How do I know I am conscious and my perception of my own consciousness isn’t an illusion itself? We currently believe consciousness is an emerging phenomenon that happens to any sufficiently complex brain that posses the ability to gather and remember knowledge about itself and the organism that holds it. I’m sure our first contact with alien intelligence will be extremely puzzling at first, then profoundly horrifying, and, finally, deeply enlightening.

atty 4y ago

The overview didn’t give too many details so hopefully I’m not arguing against too much of a straw man, but I don’t find the idea that certain physical processes mean we are fundamentally different is sound. By their very nature, those are processes that can be studied and replicated either in hardware, wetware, or pure simulation. If it’s “randomness” from quantum mechanics, then we introduce an RNG. If it’s the process of wave function collapse, then we use a quantum computer. Etc, etc.

raverbashing 4y ago

Not being algorithmic doesn't mean it can't be simulated or duplicated (example, chaotic systems can and are simulated all the time) But apart from that, the argument will be settled by someone that might manage to duplicate that. Or gives a more detailed and founded objection (Penrose missed all recent neuroscience discoveries for example). Until that happens, Penrose's book is more a strong opinion than anything else Or, another possibility is that it is unable to be simulated fully but the simulated version is close enough for most purposes (including running Skynet or the Paperclip maximizer). Or plug a quantum computer to your machine and then it is fully able to be simulated.