5 ms·

He sets up a definition where "real intelligence" requires consciousness, then argues AI lacks consciousness, therefore AI lacks real intelligence. This is some

He sets up a definition where "real intelligence" requires consciousness, then argues AI lacks consciousness, therefore AI lacks real intelligence. This is somewhat circular. The argument that consciousness can't be computable seems like a stretch as well.

pfortuny 2y ago
I do not see the “circularity”, it may lack foundation, but that is a different argument.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
zuhsetaqi 2y ago
Where’s the circle?
sampo 2y ago
Penrose believes that consciousness originates from quantum mechanics and the collapse of the wavefunction. Obviously you couldn't (effectively) simulate that with a classical computer. It's a very unconventional position, but it's not circular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadows_of_the_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadows_of_the_Mind
- int_19h 2y ago
  This is just another form of "god of the gaps" - Penrose desperately wants an interpretation that would allow for freedom of will, and so he constructs a theory around a physical process that allows for randomness, despite there being no evidence that this process is actually relevant to consciousness.
James_K 2y ago
Consciousness is not a result, it cannot be computed. It is a process, and we don't know how it interacts with computation. There are only two things I can really say about consciousness, and both are speculation: I think it isn't observable, and I think it is not a computation. For the first point, I can see no mechanism by which consciousness could affect the world so there is no way to observe it. For the second, imagine a man in a vast desert filled only with a grid of rocks that have two sides, a dark and light side and he has a small book which gives him instructions on how to flip these rocks. It seems unlikely that the rocks are sentient, yet certain configurations of rocks and books could produce the thought computation of the human mind. When does the sentience happen? If the man flips only a single rock according to those rules, would the computer be conscious? I doubt it. Does the consciousness exist between the flips of rock when he walks to the next stone? The idea that computation creates consciousness seems plainly untenable to me.
- prmph 2y ago
  Indeed, I also think consciousness cannot be reduced to computation. Here is one more thing to consider. All consciousness we can currently observe is embodied; all humans have a body and identity. We can interact with separate people corresponding to separate consciousnesses. But if computation is producing consciousness, how is its identity determined? Is the identity of the consciousness based on the set of chips doing the computation? It is based on the algorithms used (i.e., running the same algorithm anywhere animates the same consciousness)? In your example, if we say that consciousness somehow arises from the computation the man performs itself, then a question arises: what exactly is conscious in this situation? And what are the boundaries of that consciousness? Is the set of rocks as a whole? Is it the computation they are performing itself? Does the consciousness has a demarcation in space and time? There are no satisfying answers to these questions if we assume mere computation can produce consciousness.
  - chromanoid 2y ago
    Just wanted to point out that I absolutely share your view here. I would like to add that the concept of virtualization and the required representation of computation makes substrate-independent consciousness rather absurd. To me the only explanation for consciousness I find appealing is panprotopsychism.

pfortuny 2y ago

I do not see the “circularity”, it may lack foundation, but that is a different argument.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

zuhsetaqi 2y ago

Where’s the circle?

sampo 2y ago

Penrose believes that consciousness originates from quantum mechanics and the collapse of the wavefunction. Obviously you couldn't (effectively) simulate that with a classical computer. It's a very unconventional position, but it's not circular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadows_of_the_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadows_of_the_Mind

int_19h 2y ago
This is just another form of "god of the gaps" - Penrose desperately wants an interpretation that would allow for freedom of will, and so he constructs a theory around a physical process that allows for randomness, despite there being no evidence that this process is actually relevant to consciousness.

James_K 2y ago

Consciousness is not a result, it cannot be computed. It is a process, and we don't know how it interacts with computation. There are only two things I can really say about consciousness, and both are speculation: I think it isn't observable, and I think it is not a computation. For the first point, I can see no mechanism by which consciousness could affect the world so there is no way to observe it. For the second, imagine a man in a vast desert filled only with a grid of rocks that have two sides, a dark and light side and he has a small book which gives him instructions on how to flip these rocks. It seems unlikely that the rocks are sentient, yet certain configurations of rocks and books could produce the thought computation of the human mind. When does the sentience happen? If the man flips only a single rock according to those rules, would the computer be conscious? I doubt it. Does the consciousness exist between the flips of rock when he walks to the next stone? The idea that computation creates consciousness seems plainly untenable to me.

prmph 2y ago
Indeed, I also think consciousness cannot be reduced to computation. Here is one more thing to consider. All consciousness we can currently observe is embodied; all humans have a body and identity. We can interact with separate people corresponding to separate consciousnesses. But if computation is producing consciousness, how is its identity determined? Is the identity of the consciousness based on the set of chips doing the computation? It is based on the algorithms used (i.e., running the same algorithm anywhere animates the same consciousness)? In your example, if we say that consciousness somehow arises from the computation the man performs itself, then a question arises: what exactly is conscious in this situation? And what are the boundaries of that consciousness? Is the set of rocks as a whole? Is it the computation they are performing itself? Does the consciousness has a demarcation in space and time? There are no satisfying answers to these questions if we assume mere computation can produce consciousness.
- chromanoid 2y ago
  Just wanted to point out that I absolutely share your view here. I would like to add that the concept of virtualization and the required representation of computation makes substrate-independent consciousness rather absurd. To me the only explanation for consciousness I find appealing is panprotopsychism.