4 ms·

And what about concepts like art, love, beauty, morality? Are these also simply "computations" of some sort? I believe your argument holds true for all intelli

And what about concepts like art, love, beauty, morality? Are these also simply "computations" of some sort? I believe your argument holds true for all intelligence that relies on logic. However, I would put forth that the full definition of "intelligence" includes logic, and also something else, let's call it "beyond logic". For example, see Gödel's incompleteness theorems [1]. You will find that there are statements that can be "true but unprovable". Statements that are "true but unprovable" cannot be computed. But that doesn't make them untrue. Therefore, there are limits to artificial intelligence. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#Relationship_with_computability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...

AndrewKemendo 12y ago
>And what about concepts like art, love, beauty, morality? Are these also simply "computations" of some sort? Yes. I would argue that they are no more abstract than any other pattern recognition and the fact that they can be differentiated by perception makes them computable. You fundamentally ask the "Qualia" question, which for my part at least is well understood to be an emergent property of having perception. The Godel question is always brought up as though it is some kind of trump card - though it is not. It simply states that, we don't think that the universe can simulate itself without inconsistency. Call that a limit if you want but AI is complete well before we have a consistent universal model. If I were you I would be more worried about the münchhausen trilemma
habitue 12y ago
The point isn't that everything can be proven, the point is that human brains have no special abilities that can't be emulated by computers. If you emulate every neuron and neurotransmitter in the brain with a sufficiently powerful computer, you will get an intelligence that has the same perception of love, beauty, blah blah blah that people think somehow set them apart from all other matter in the universe. In addition, once you have it modeled, its possible invent a computer that loves more deeply than any human ever could. Who understands and appreciates the human concept of beauty better than any human ever could etc. We know these things are emergent properties of very slow meat processors, and therefore can be recreated again on very fast silicon processors.
- joedavison 12y ago
  I believe you are correct: human brains have no special abilities that can't be emulated by computers. But I also think that "human" == "brain" is far from a given, and that is an implicit assumption of this viewpoint.
  - habitue 12y ago
    Are you talking about sensory perception, hormones from the rest of the body affecting cognition and emotion? Any of those effects could be replicated as well. If you're talking about a non-materialistic view of the mind: http://youtu.be/Juriylw7B0g http://youtu.be/Juriylw7B0g
Crito 12y ago
> And what about concepts like art, love, beauty, morality? Are these also simply "computations" of some sort? Yes, all that we are is contained within our skulls, in some sort of mess of chemical reactions and computations built ontop of those chemical reactions. Our detailed understanding of those reactions and relationships is limited at this point, however there has been nothing to suggest that anything that "is us" is operating outside of the laws of physics. In other words, we are materialistic. That leaves the question of if we are algorithmic. According to the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle, we are. Some people, most notably Roger Penrose, disagree. Penrose's objection to the algorithmic nature of the mind is rooting in Gödel's incompleteness theorems (I suspect you are familiar with his objections, maybe read his books on the topic?). However it is important to remember that Penrose does not argue against a materialistic mind, merely the algorithmic mind. He believes that there are quantum phenomenon in your wetware that are essential to the human mind, and which allow a violation of the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle. If he is correct (and I believe that he is not. evidence for such a essential quantum phenomenon is absent), then it doesn't really matter. What it would mean is that any computer constructed to run a human-like intelligence would need to take advantage of those same quantum phenomenon. Anything a materialistic (although not algorithmic) mind can do, a sufficiently advanced materialistic computer can do as well.
ramidarigaz 12y ago
The issue I have with your statement is that I don't see why we are special? What about our machinery makes us any more fit to be intelligent than a hunk of doped silicon? I mean, it all seems to come down to electrons flowing through (meat or metal) circuits. Of course, whether or not you feel the same way might partially depend on your religious beliefs. I guess I just don't see anything special about our wetware that couldn't be reproduced on silicon (eventually).
comex 12y ago
There may be limits, depending on your definition of "logic", but there is no part of the incompleteness theorem that exempts the particular type of computer that happened to evolve over the last few millions of years. There is no spark that is fundamentally unreplicable, despite being replicated every time humans reproduce. Art, love, beauty, and morality are parts of our desires that don't correspond neatly to the idea of self-interested maximization of material wealth or whatever, but there is no rule that an AI must have a simple objective function: one could be built with such goals or without them, with useless ones (paperclip maximizer) or weird ones (e.g. complete disregard for the well-being of the self). Hopefully if we ever do build some super AI (I'm not opining on any particular time frame in which this might happen, just on theoretical possibility), it will share a variety of our values, and will therefore want to include such values in any AIs it builds, and so on. But values are fundamentally arbitrary - look at the variety of values in human cultures, and consider how much more alien we should expect a nonhuman intelligence to be.
Houshalter 12y ago
You are spewing complete nonsense. So far as anyone knows the human brain is not capable of doing anything that can't be done by a general purpose computer. There is absolutely no reason to suspect otherwise. Gödel's incompleteness theorem (and everything else) apply just as strongly to biological brains as to silicon ones.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

>And what about concepts like art, love, beauty, morality? Are these also simply "computations" of some sort? Yes. I would argue that they are no more abstract than any other pattern recognition and the fact that they can be differentiated by perception makes them computable. You fundamentally ask the "Qualia" question, which for my part at least is well understood to be an emergent property of having perception. The Godel question is always brought up as though it is some kind of trump card - though it is not. It simply states that, we don't think that the universe can simulate itself without inconsistency. Call that a limit if you want but AI is complete well before we have a consistent universal model. If I were you I would be more worried about the münchhausen trilemma

habitue 12y ago

The point isn't that everything can be proven, the point is that human brains have no special abilities that can't be emulated by computers. If you emulate every neuron and neurotransmitter in the brain with a sufficiently powerful computer, you will get an intelligence that has the same perception of love, beauty, blah blah blah that people think somehow set them apart from all other matter in the universe. In addition, once you have it modeled, its possible invent a computer that loves more deeply than any human ever could. Who understands and appreciates the human concept of beauty better than any human ever could etc. We know these things are emergent properties of very slow meat processors, and therefore can be recreated again on very fast silicon processors.

joedavison 12y ago
I believe you are correct: human brains have no special abilities that can't be emulated by computers. But I also think that "human" == "brain" is far from a given, and that is an implicit assumption of this viewpoint.
- habitue 12y ago
  Are you talking about sensory perception, hormones from the rest of the body affecting cognition and emotion? Any of those effects could be replicated as well. If you're talking about a non-materialistic view of the mind: http://youtu.be/Juriylw7B0g http://youtu.be/Juriylw7B0g

Crito 12y ago

> And what about concepts like art, love, beauty, morality? Are these also simply "computations" of some sort? Yes, all that we are is contained within our skulls, in some sort of mess of chemical reactions and computations built ontop of those chemical reactions. Our detailed understanding of those reactions and relationships is limited at this point, however there has been nothing to suggest that anything that "is us" is operating outside of the laws of physics. In other words, we are materialistic. That leaves the question of if we are algorithmic. According to the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle, we are. Some people, most notably Roger Penrose, disagree. Penrose's objection to the algorithmic nature of the mind is rooting in Gödel's incompleteness theorems (I suspect you are familiar with his objections, maybe read his books on the topic?). However it is important to remember that Penrose does not argue against a materialistic mind, merely the algorithmic mind. He believes that there are quantum phenomenon in your wetware that are essential to the human mind, and which allow a violation of the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle. If he is correct (and I believe that he is not. evidence for such a essential quantum phenomenon is absent), then it doesn't really matter. What it would mean is that any computer constructed to run a human-like intelligence would need to take advantage of those same quantum phenomenon. Anything a materialistic (although not algorithmic) mind can do, a sufficiently advanced materialistic computer can do as well.

ramidarigaz 12y ago

The issue I have with your statement is that I don't see why we are special? What about our machinery makes us any more fit to be intelligent than a hunk of doped silicon? I mean, it all seems to come down to electrons flowing through (meat or metal) circuits. Of course, whether or not you feel the same way might partially depend on your religious beliefs. I guess I just don't see anything special about our wetware that couldn't be reproduced on silicon (eventually).

comex 12y ago

There may be limits, depending on your definition of "logic", but there is no part of the incompleteness theorem that exempts the particular type of computer that happened to evolve over the last few millions of years. There is no spark that is fundamentally unreplicable, despite being replicated every time humans reproduce. Art, love, beauty, and morality are parts of our desires that don't correspond neatly to the idea of self-interested maximization of material wealth or whatever, but there is no rule that an AI must have a simple objective function: one could be built with such goals or without them, with useless ones (paperclip maximizer) or weird ones (e.g. complete disregard for the well-being of the self). Hopefully if we ever do build some super AI (I'm not opining on any particular time frame in which this might happen, just on theoretical possibility), it will share a variety of our values, and will therefore want to include such values in any AIs it builds, and so on. But values are fundamentally arbitrary - look at the variety of values in human cultures, and consider how much more alien we should expect a nonhuman intelligence to be.

Houshalter 12y ago

You are spewing complete nonsense. So far as anyone knows the human brain is not capable of doing anything that can't be done by a general purpose computer. There is absolutely no reason to suspect otherwise. Gödel's incompleteness theorem (and everything else) apply just as strongly to biological brains as to silicon ones.