Miscellaneous Chatter > Philosophy & Science

Is Penrose wrong about Strong AI?

(1/3) > >>

What Came Before:

--- Quote from: sciborg2 ---Admittedly I'm not well read on the subject, but from a Wiki-trip it seems that Penrose is on to something when he notes that a computer couldn't apprehend something like Godel's theorems. (I haven't read Shadows of the Mind yet)

thanks,

Sci
--- End quote ---

What Came Before:

--- Quote from: Jorge ---I've always boiled it down to something simple: can the main physical processes responsible for thought be emulated by a Turing machine?

Because I happen to think that the main physical processes required for human-like intellect, memory and creativity are mostly limited to cellular (action potential) and molecular (protein expression) mechanisms, then the answer is yes. A Turing machine should feasibly be capable of running something like Gerald M. Edelman's model of consciousness, so I really don't see why not.
--- End quote ---

What Came Before:

--- Quote from: Callan S. ---At about this point I guess I'd question if anyone can actually comprehend these Godel's theorems.

If there's some metric for measure if they do indeed understand, then seemingly a machine could understand.

If there isn't a metric/can't be, that'd make me speculate such theorems are an agreement game (a little like table top roleplay!)
--- End quote ---

What Came Before:

--- Quote from: sciborg2 ---Jorge: Will have get back to you, know nothing about Gerald M. Edelman.

Callan: Well, I don't yet have the insight necessary to comprehend Godel, but I have my fingers crossed....for advanced nootropics that is. ;-)

Basically, it goes back to Scott's idea that skin spies can't apprehend paradox. Mind you I've yet to get a hold of the book, but my understanding is that Penrose basically points out several mathematical problems that you can't solve using algorithms. As such, he points out that no current understanding of computation can produce human consciousness.

From there he takes a bold tactic in that he asserts consciousness has something to do with quantum mechanics. But barring that he's saying the same thing as Chalmers, that consciousness is something *more*....but this is would require another thread.
--- End quote ---

What Came Before:

--- Quote from: Callan S. ---Hmm. To speculate, I'd propose instead a multiple processors approach to the mind - the ability to 'comprehend' paradox is actual two different processors going 'WTF?' 'WTF!?' to each other, unable to produce/hand shake on one single 'world' on the matter between them, to exist in/take as the one truth (is the lier a bad lier? Is he not a lier - two worlds, no way of marrying them into one. A mind split).

I've no idea how a skin spies brain is set out, but maybe it doesn't have multiple processors/the legion. It can never be 'in two minds' on a matter.
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page