3 ms·
Either human-like attributes can be described using physics or they are magic. If they can be described using physics then they can be simulated. If they can be
by azan_ 4mo ago
Either human-like attributes can be described using physics or they are magic. If they can be described using physics then they can be simulated. If they can be simulated then they can be simulated in any Turing complete system, include AoE II.
- yudidnmkating 4mo ago[dead]
- measurablefunc 4mo agoPhysically describable doesn't mean computable. You're making too many unjustified logical leaps which makes your argument circular & conflates "physical" w/ "computable".
- red75prime 4mo agoWe don't know any physical processes that allow to compute Turing-incomputable functions. An assumption that the brain uses such a process is not based on any positive knowledge.
- measurablefunc 4mo agoArgument from ignorance is not as well known as other fallacies but very common in discussions about sentience, consciousness, and computability, i.e. not having evidence for something doesn't mean that thing is false. It is possible there are physical processes that are not computable & not being aware of such processes doesn't mean the alternative (everything is computable) is true. So instead of making any unjustifiable claims like "everything physical is computable" you should instead just say "I believe consciousness is computable and that is why it is possible to instantiate it on any computational substrate, including strategy games like Age of Empires, properly arranged dominoes, and water wheels".
- red75prime 4mo agoOK. I know that we haven't found any processes that violate the physical Church-Turing thesis, and I believe that we will not find them in the brain that got intelligent enough only after scaling to a hundred billion of neurons and hundreds of trillions of synapses. And, BTW, we don't have theories (except the controversial Orch OR) that allow such computations.
- VeninVidiaVicii 4mo agoThis is the right take. In my opinion, AI can’t ever be conscious but I can’t really prove it - moreover it’s not even a scientific stance because it’s not even falsifiable. But it probably doesn’t matter.
- slopinthebag 4mo agoKey word being simulated
- red75prime 4mo agoTaking this word as a "key" just leads to a philosophical zombie dead end which is not tied to anything observable.
- slopinthebag 4mo ago"Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in both cases."
- red75prime 4mo agoYou can easily find a rebuttal. Why do you think that consciousness is like rain and not like, say, arithmetic?
- slopinthebag 4mo agoSorry, how is arithmetic different?
- Joker_vD 4mo agoBecause computers don't actually do arithmetic, they simulate it. When you take 2 sticks, add 2 sticks, and obtain 4 sticks, that's arithmetic. Having a raised flag with one lowered flag to the right and the left of it and then changing this configuration to having a single raised flag with two lowered flags right to it, and interpreting this charade as having added 2 to 2 and obtained 4 — that's just a simulation. It didn't actually have added 2 and 2 of anything.
- 4mo ago
- armada651 4mo agoBy that logic an abacus has human-like attributes. Just because it can simulate the processes involved does not mean it is at all practical to compute them. Besides, LLMs are not a simulation of the physics involved in human consciousness to begin with.