Cartoon man in a house speaks to his computer: "Say you are conscious."/ Computer responds back ">I AM CONSCIOUS."/ Man says "oh my god...." / Meanwhile, the vastness of the cosmos opens up in the night sky outside of his home. But the man is too focused on his AI.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

The situation is the following.

  1. Brains are analog computers, which are digitally irreducible.
  2. There are stringent limitations on Turing machines (digital computers),
  3. We can’t extract semantics from syntax, and so…

We’ll probably need analog computation, currently in its infancy, to get artificial (inorganic) consciousness.

I study metaethics and philosophy of mathematics. These problems are real, and I am being honest with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    That is not the situation. 😛

    Analog signals are not digitally irreducible without presuming there's no level of noise floor under which greater detail is irrelevant, Turing's machines are not digital by their construction and predate the concept by a long time, and the first computers we built were analog and we invented digital computers later because they were cheaper and more efficient and easier and more reliable.

    Also the halting problem doesn't say "there are things which a computer can't know but a human can", it says "there are some things that cannot be known".

    Similarly Gödel proved that there will always be true things about a system that cannot be proven from within the system, that is using its axioms. That was a real bummer for folks trying to prove all of math with a small set of axioms. But that does not mean there are things math can't know that humans magically can, it just means there's other math, outside the axioms, that are true without following from them, in math. He proved it with math, after all. It doesn't claim to give any special abilities to human brains.

    And also, again, nothing Gödel or Turing ever said has anything to do with the concept of "digital" anything. I think you're using the term "digital" to mean "rulesy"? Which is not even close to what it means?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    Turing's machines are notdigital by their construction

    This isn’t even wrong.

    Go take a theoretical computer science course. Lectures from MIT and Carnegie Mellon are available on YouTube.

    Stop watching podcasts with pseudo-intellectual media grifters and read the actual research literature by real philosophers and mathematicians on these otherwise arcane topics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment