4 ms·

> An algorithm is an algorithm. A computer is a computer. These things matter. Sure. But we're allowed to notice abstractions that are similar between these t

by tux1968 8mo ago

> An algorithm is an algorithm. A computer is a computer. These things matter. Sure. But we're allowed to notice abstractions that are similar between these things. Unless you believe that logic and "thinking" are somehow magic, and thus beyond the realm of computation, then there's no reason to think they're restricted to humanity. It is human ego and hubris that keeps demanding we're special and could never be fully emulated in silicon. It's the exact same reasoning that put the earth at the center of the universe, and humans as the primary focus of God's will. That said, nobody is confused that LLM's are the intellectual equal of humans today. They're more powerful in some ways, and tremendously weaker in other ways. But pointing those differences out, is not a logical argument in proving their ultimate abilities.

Octoth0rpe 8mo ago
> Unless you believe that logic and "thinking" are somehow magic, and thus beyond the realm of computation Worth noting that significant majority of the US population (though not necessarily developers) does in fact believe that, or at least belongs to a religious group for which that belief is commonly promulgated.
goatlover 8mo ago
I think computation is an abstraction, not the reality. Same with math. Reality just is, humans come up with maps and models of it, then mistake the maps for the reality, which often causes distortions and attribution errors across domains. One of those distortions is thinking consciousness has to be computable, when computation is an abstraction, and consciousness is experiential. But it's a philosophical argument. Nothing supernatural about it either.
- gf000 8mo ago
  Reality is. Consciousness is.. questionable. I have one. You? I don't know, I'm experiencing reality and you seem to have one, but I can never know it. Computations on the other hand describe reality. And unless human brains somehow escape the physical reality, this description about the latter should surely apply here as well. There are no stronger computational models than a Turing machine, ergo whatever the human brain does (regardless of implementation) should be describable by one.
  - pixl97 8mo ago
    >Reality is. Look into quantum mechanics much and you may even begin to doubt that. We're just a statistical outcome!
- tux1968 8mo ago
  You can play that game with any argument. "Consciousness" is just an abstraction, not the reality, which makes people who desperately want humans to be special, attribute it to something beyond reach of any other part of reality. It's an emotional need, placated by a philosophical outlook. Consciousness is just a model or map for a particular part of reality, and ironically focusing on it as somehow being the most important thing, makes you miss reality. The reality is, we have devices in the real world that have demonstrable, factual capabilities. They're on the spectrum of what we'd call "intelligence". And therefore, it's natural that we compare them to other things that are also on that spectrum. That's every bit as much factual, as anything you've said. It's just stupid to get so lost in philosophical terminology, that we have to dismiss them as mistaken maps or models. The only people doing that, are hyper focused on how important humans are, and what makes them identifiably different than other parts of reality. It's a mistake that the best philosophers of every age keep making.
- pixl97 8mo ago
  I recommend starting here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness... The argument you're attempting to have, and I believe failing at, is one of resolution of simulation. Consciousness is 100% computable. Be that digitally (electrical), chemically, or quantumly. You don't have any other choices outside of that. Moreso consciousness/sentience is a continuum going from very basic animals to the complexity of humans inner mind. Consciousness didn't just spring up, it evolved over millions of years, and therefore is made up of parts that are divisible.
rolph 8mo ago
silicon is not a dynamic structure, silicon does not reengineer and reconfigure itself in response to success/failure or rules discovery.
- WarmWash 8mo ago
  Silicon is not dynamic, but code is. The output of a silicon system that reprograms itself, and the output of a neural system that rearranges itself, are indistinguishable.
  - rolph 8mo ago
    sorry, but you are absolutely wrong on that one, you yourself are absolute proof. not only that code is only as dynamic as the rules of the language will permit. silicon and code cant break the rule, or change the rules, biological adaptive hysteretic, out of band informatic neural systems do, and repeat, silicon and code cant.
    - WarmWash 8mo ago
      Programming languages are turing complete...the boundary is mathematics itself. Unless you are going to take the position that neural systems transcend mathmatics (i.e. they are magic), there is no theoretical reason that a brain can't run on silicon. It's all just numbers, no magic spirit energy. We've had evolutionary algorithms and programs that self-train themselves for decades now.
      - rolph 8mo ago
        mathematics, has a problem with uncertainties, and that is why math, as structured cant do it. magic makes a cool strawman, but there is no magic, you need to refine your awareness of physical reality. solid state silicon wont get you where you want to go. you should look at colloidal systems [however that leads to biology] or if energetic constraints are not an issue, plasma state quantum "computation". also any such thing that is generated, must be responsive to consequences of its own activities, capable of meta-training, rather than being locked into a training programming. a system of aligned, emergent outcomes.
_qib3 8mo ago
Worth noting that this is the thesis of Seeing Red: A study in consciousness. I think you will find it a good read, even if I disagreed with some of the ideas.

by tux1968 8mo ago

Octoth0rpe 8mo ago

> Unless you believe that logic and "thinking" are somehow magic, and thus beyond the realm of computation Worth noting that significant majority of the US population (though not necessarily developers) does in fact believe that, or at least belongs to a religious group for which that belief is commonly promulgated.

goatlover 8mo ago

I think computation is an abstraction, not the reality. Same with math. Reality just is, humans come up with maps and models of it, then mistake the maps for the reality, which often causes distortions and attribution errors across domains. One of those distortions is thinking consciousness has to be computable, when computation is an abstraction, and consciousness is experiential. But it's a philosophical argument. Nothing supernatural about it either.

gf000 8mo ago
Reality is. Consciousness is.. questionable. I have one. You? I don't know, I'm experiencing reality and you seem to have one, but I can never know it. Computations on the other hand describe reality. And unless human brains somehow escape the physical reality, this description about the latter should surely apply here as well. There are no stronger computational models than a Turing machine, ergo whatever the human brain does (regardless of implementation) should be describable by one.
- pixl97 8mo ago
  >Reality is. Look into quantum mechanics much and you may even begin to doubt that. We're just a statistical outcome!
tux1968 8mo ago
You can play that game with any argument. "Consciousness" is just an abstraction, not the reality, which makes people who desperately want humans to be special, attribute it to something beyond reach of any other part of reality. It's an emotional need, placated by a philosophical outlook. Consciousness is just a model or map for a particular part of reality, and ironically focusing on it as somehow being the most important thing, makes you miss reality. The reality is, we have devices in the real world that have demonstrable, factual capabilities. They're on the spectrum of what we'd call "intelligence". And therefore, it's natural that we compare them to other things that are also on that spectrum. That's every bit as much factual, as anything you've said. It's just stupid to get so lost in philosophical terminology, that we have to dismiss them as mistaken maps or models. The only people doing that, are hyper focused on how important humans are, and what makes them identifiably different than other parts of reality. It's a mistake that the best philosophers of every age keep making.
pixl97 8mo ago
I recommend starting here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness... The argument you're attempting to have, and I believe failing at, is one of resolution of simulation. Consciousness is 100% computable. Be that digitally (electrical), chemically, or quantumly. You don't have any other choices outside of that. Moreso consciousness/sentience is a continuum going from very basic animals to the complexity of humans inner mind. Consciousness didn't just spring up, it evolved over millions of years, and therefore is made up of parts that are divisible.

rolph 8mo ago

silicon is not a dynamic structure, silicon does not reengineer and reconfigure itself in response to success/failure or rules discovery.

WarmWash 8mo ago
Silicon is not dynamic, but code is. The output of a silicon system that reprograms itself, and the output of a neural system that rearranges itself, are indistinguishable.
- rolph 8mo ago
  sorry, but you are absolutely wrong on that one, you yourself are absolute proof. not only that code is only as dynamic as the rules of the language will permit. silicon and code cant break the rule, or change the rules, biological adaptive hysteretic, out of band informatic neural systems do, and repeat, silicon and code cant.
  - WarmWash 8mo ago
    Programming languages are turing complete...the boundary is mathematics itself. Unless you are going to take the position that neural systems transcend mathmatics (i.e. they are magic), there is no theoretical reason that a brain can't run on silicon. It's all just numbers, no magic spirit energy. We've had evolutionary algorithms and programs that self-train themselves for decades now.
    - rolph 8mo ago
      mathematics, has a problem with uncertainties, and that is why math, as structured cant do it. magic makes a cool strawman, but there is no magic, you need to refine your awareness of physical reality. solid state silicon wont get you where you want to go. you should look at colloidal systems [however that leads to biology] or if energetic constraints are not an issue, plasma state quantum "computation". also any such thing that is generated, must be responsive to consequences of its own activities, capable of meta-training, rather than being locked into a training programming. a system of aligned, emergent outcomes.

_qib3 8mo ago

Worth noting that this is the thesis of Seeing Red: A study in consciousness. I think you will find it a good read, even if I disagreed with some of the ideas.