Miscellaneous Chatter > Philosophy & Science
Is Penrose wrong about Strong AI?
What Came Before:
--- Quote from: Ser Scot A Ellison ---I'm reading the Penrose interview and had a thought. What if conciousness is the ability to think about things that are "non-computable" as Turing defines the term?
--- End quote ---
What Came Before:
--- Quote from: sciborg2 ---Scot: As to consciousness relating to the non-computable, I think that is partially Penrose's idea, and while I have no idea if his proofs are correct or not I sort of see it in the same way I think you are proposing.
IF he's right, then consciousness is a combination of "free won't", deliberation, and mathematical thinking. Though for him this is the collapse of the wave function, which leads to the Mind being fundamental and thus neither deterministic nor random.
Of course, for most things, I think you can compute them - someone on the Bakker blog mentioned AIs and goal states, and I do agree for the majority of things we sort out what will make us happy and then attempt to achieve those goals.
As a friend of mine said - "Having to choose everything by deliberation would lead to people being stressed and unhappy." Many of the most "meaningful" things, like loving a spouse or wanting to be a musician, aren't really things that we choose. We "look inside ourselves", aka query our happiness measurement systems, and then act.
What's interesting is that the weight we apply to certain things seems to something we can edit - therein comes in the ability to motivate ourselves. Most of our will seems to relate more to pushing ourselves and enforcing self-discipline - both things can fall into the "free won't" paradigm.
--- End quote ---
What Came Before:
--- Quote from: sciborg2 ---Scot: As to consciousness relating to the non-computable, I think that is partially Penrose's idea, and while I have no idea if his proofs are correct or not I sort of see it in the same way I think you are proposing.
IF he's right, then consciousness is a combination of "free won't", deliberation, and mathematical thinking. Though for him this is the collapse of the wave function, which leads to the Mind being fundamental and thus neither deterministic nor random.
Of course, for most things, I think you can compute them - someone on the Bakker blog mentioned AIs and goal states, and I do agree for the majority of things we sort out what will make us happy and then attempt to achieve those goals.
As a friend of mine said - "Having to choose everything by deliberation would lead to people being stressed and unhappy." Many of the most "meaningful" things, like loving a spouse or wanting to be a musician, aren't really things that we choose. We "look inside ourselves", aka query our happiness measurement systems, and then act.
What's interesting is that the weight we apply to certain things seems to something we can edit - therein comes in the ability to motivate ourselves. Most of our will seems to relate more to pushing ourselves and enforcing self-discipline - both things can fall into the "free won't" paradigm.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version