Philosophy

636 readers

1 users here now

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

ZafiraHUN@mander.xyz

We may never be able to tell if AI becomes conscious, argues philosopher (www.cam.ac.uk)

submitted 5 days ago by King@sh.itjust.works to c/philosophy@mander.xyz

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

"Which x86 instruction plays chess?"

Nonsense question.

Unless you believe in souls, the physical world follows rules, and those rules can be simulated. Why would a simulated brain behave any differently than a real one?

[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I don’t think we can make definitive statements regarding the computability of the physical world when not everything of the physical world has been figured out yet.

We know the X86 instructions of a chess engine. You can download it.

We don’t know the X86 instructions of a human brain yet. We don’t know if such thing can exist.

I don’t believe there’s some secret undiscovered Konami cheat code of X86 instructions that unlocks consciousness. There must be something more, unless we accept that all programs are conscious in one way or another.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The only way such a thing cannot exist is if you believe in magic.

There must be something more, unless we accept that all programs are conscious in one way or another.

No, that's stupid. Unless you think all programs are chess engines in one way or another.

[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So everything uncomputable is magic?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If you're poised to cleverly bust out the halting problem - nature can't solve the halting problem either. It's not a riddle; it's a contradiction.

Your brain is three pounds of wet meat powered by cornflakes. Unless you think it's secretly a radio to heaven, it's only biology, and the underlying physics of biology are rules we can emulate.

[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

There are more ways the universe can be uncomputable.

Does the universe have random elements? (as opposed to being deterministic)
Is the universe continuous? (as opposed to being discrete)

We don’t have definitive answers to any of these two statements.

If any of these two statements are true, then no computer can simulate the universe, as all computers are both deterministic and discrete. If consciousness exists and there are parts of the universe that aren’t computable, then I believe consciousness is more likely to be in the uncomputable part of the universe.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

... computers can handle randomness.

Being continuous would not rule out simulation that's accurate enough for whatever a brain needs. Brains work after a fifth of whiskey. Planck-length timing differences are not going to crash the simulation.

The universe evolved us. Consciousness is just a thing matter can do. There's no sensible reason to declare it unknowable, unrepeatable, or unfakeable.