4 ms·
Silicon math can never be chemical goo math!
by WarmWash 14d ago
Silicon math can never be chemical goo math!
- hardbass 14d agoWhy can't people just admit they believe in souls?
- bananaflag 14d agoI frequently say what you say, but there is a more charitable reading: today's AIs are not "minds", as they are not stateful. Maybe continual learning ones (like the mini AGI exhibited today on the HN front page) will be perceived as "soulful".
- hardbass 14d agoI think the working space in a given chat or session still counts as mind enough, but your argument is different, in that it argues about specific architectures rather than simply stating "software therefore cannot be conscious".
- Terr_ 14d ago"You're trying to parse HTML with a linear regex. That algorithmic approach is too limited to do what we want with the problem-space." "Why can't you just admit that you think only tree-parsers have souls!?"
- hardbass 14d agoBelieving a specific architecture is not capable of consciousness is a different matter. I am seeing statements that simply state things like "it is software or a machine and therefore cannot be conscious" without any further clarification. That clearly betrays a belief in souls.
- lolakutty 14d agoSure, if your architecture include hardware that is known to be capable of generation consciousness, the no one will say that. Problem is that we don't know any such hardware..
- hardbass 14d agoWhy? The human brain already exists. Unless you have some well defined criterion for what hardware can support consciousness how can you say that?
- lolakutty 14d agoOh, I thought you were talking about "architectures" not containing a human brain..
- hardbass 14d agoWhy? What's so strange about a human brain? It is a physical system of molecules running electrical and chemical signals. We already have direct proof that physical systems support consciousness. So why do you believe other physical systems can't have consciousness? Give me your definition of what consciousness is.
- lolakutty 14d agoWrong assumption that the chemical goo is only doing math....
- hardbass 14d agoWhat's the non-math part you think? All of currently known physics is turing computable as far as I am aware.
- lolakutty 14d agocurrently known physics is not good enough.. It is quite an arbitrary classification. What is so special about "current" knowledge...
- hardbass 14d agoIf you think current physics is insufficient but future physics might be sufficient, I can accept that but its still an unfounded belief. If you truly believe something "more" is needed, then you are placing a bet that always lost for centuries. Bets in anything supernatural or aphysical have always and consistently failed till now.