5 ms·

Lets assume that humans are complex molecular machines. That is our bodies obey the laws of physics and are made of atoms that behave in predictable ways. If w

Lets assume that humans are complex molecular machines. That is our bodies obey the laws of physics and are made of atoms that behave in predictable ways. If we know what we are made of (the molecules and how they are arranged) and how these molecules can be modeled (i.e. quantum mechanics) then it is only a matter of time until an entire human can be modeled on a computer. Once you can model the entire body, then you can have a computer that can pass the Turing test, because it more or less is human. If humans can be modeled as deterministic systems that follow physical laws, then computers will simulate them at some point in the future.

grannyg00se 15y ago
There are two problems that I can see here. First, the complexity in the physics/chemistry of our molecular machines is such that "only a matter of time" may extend longer than the time span of our species' existence. Second, it is completely possibly that we are more than molecular machines. There may be an aspect to our functioning that is beyond the physical. That aspect of our existence may not be possible to replicate.
- baddox 15y ago
  > There may be an aspect to our functioning that is beyond the physical. That aspect of our existence may not be possible to replicate. What does "beyond the physical" even mean? I assume you mean something "supernatural," meaning something that is "true/real," yet impossible to study or even verify empirically.
  - grannyg00se 15y ago
    Beyond the physical meaning properties that are unable to be replicated by manipulating physical atoms and molecules. I wouldn't call them "supernatural" at all because (assuming they do exist) they are absolutely a natural and even necessary part of life. I would assume they would be possible to verify in some way once we've reached the stage where hard AI is nearly achieved.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      If it's not supernature, than science can evaluate it and in time even understand it. After that, it's just a question of engineering.
      - grannyg00se 15y ago
        There are completely natural phenomena that have been studied and evaluated for centuries and still have no concrete explanation. We may not have sufficient time to answer some of these questions, and we may also reach a limit to how much we can understand and discover about ourselves.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        Again, you are speaking in terms that make it difficult to extract your meaning, so correct me if I have failed to understand what you are trying to say. In particular I would be interested to hear what some of these phenomena are. See, the lack of a "concrete explanation" isn't really a useful thing to say about something. We don't yet have anything that could be called a "concrete explanation" of even things like gravity. What we do have are theories that allow us to make useful predictions about how gravity will effect things. Imperfect as those, like all, theories are, we've still put stuff on other planets with them. There certainly are many "open problems" in science, but to my knowledge we have yet to ever encounter anything that is fundamentally beyond the grasp of the physical sciences. Take for example the Coronal Heating Problem: On the surface it seems to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which is some rather heavy shit...) but even in extreme cases like that science solders on. There are numerous hypothesis that have been proposed to explain it, and over time our understanding of it will only become more robust. Anyway: To address this particular concern I'd like to say that until we have any strong evidence to suggest that humans possess a more powerful model of computation than we already regularly reason about, we have to assume that they do not.
        grannyg00se 15y ago
        Well let's take your example of gravity. We know a lot about it. Like you said, we've put stuff on other planets. And we have satellites in orbit. Amazing. But even with that we're still theorizing about exactly how it works. And we definitely can't recreate it. It's possible that there are hard limitations on our ability to recreate some of the very fundamental phenomena we experience in everyday life. Intelligence may be among them.

grannyg00se 15y ago

There are two problems that I can see here. First, the complexity in the physics/chemistry of our molecular machines is such that "only a matter of time" may extend longer than the time span of our species' existence. Second, it is completely possibly that we are more than molecular machines. There may be an aspect to our functioning that is beyond the physical. That aspect of our existence may not be possible to replicate.

baddox 15y ago
> There may be an aspect to our functioning that is beyond the physical. That aspect of our existence may not be possible to replicate. What does "beyond the physical" even mean? I assume you mean something "supernatural," meaning something that is "true/real," yet impossible to study or even verify empirically.
- grannyg00se 15y ago
  Beyond the physical meaning properties that are unable to be replicated by manipulating physical atoms and molecules. I wouldn't call them "supernatural" at all because (assuming they do exist) they are absolutely a natural and even necessary part of life. I would assume they would be possible to verify in some way once we've reached the stage where hard AI is nearly achieved.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    If it's not supernature, than science can evaluate it and in time even understand it. After that, it's just a question of engineering.
    - grannyg00se 15y ago
      There are completely natural phenomena that have been studied and evaluated for centuries and still have no concrete explanation. We may not have sufficient time to answer some of these questions, and we may also reach a limit to how much we can understand and discover about ourselves.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        Again, you are speaking in terms that make it difficult to extract your meaning, so correct me if I have failed to understand what you are trying to say. In particular I would be interested to hear what some of these phenomena are. See, the lack of a "concrete explanation" isn't really a useful thing to say about something. We don't yet have anything that could be called a "concrete explanation" of even things like gravity. What we do have are theories that allow us to make useful predictions about how gravity will effect things. Imperfect as those, like all, theories are, we've still put stuff on other planets with them. There certainly are many "open problems" in science, but to my knowledge we have yet to ever encounter anything that is fundamentally beyond the grasp of the physical sciences. Take for example the Coronal Heating Problem: On the surface it seems to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which is some rather heavy shit...) but even in extreme cases like that science solders on. There are numerous hypothesis that have been proposed to explain it, and over time our understanding of it will only become more robust. Anyway: To address this particular concern I'd like to say that until we have any strong evidence to suggest that humans possess a more powerful model of computation than we already regularly reason about, we have to assume that they do not.
        grannyg00se 15y ago
        Well let's take your example of gravity. We know a lot about it. Like you said, we've put stuff on other planets. And we have satellites in orbit. Amazing. But even with that we're still theorizing about exactly how it works. And we definitely can't recreate it. It's possible that there are hard limitations on our ability to recreate some of the very fundamental phenomena we experience in everyday life. Intelligence may be among them.