Re: A dilemma
- From: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:03 -0400
Gruff wrote:
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:Tina Hall wrote:Whilst I agree with you that Tina's position is essentially a religious one, it's not true to say there's no *rational* reason to believe duplicating the brain's function is impossible "in silicon". Lots of highly rational and respected computer scientists would agree with her, except they have rational arguments to back up their beliefs (even if Tina doesn't).Sea Wasp <seawasp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Tina Hall wrote:
What you think you are is entirely up to you. For me, robots
aren't alife, and consciousness can't be programmed. All robots
can ever be is programmed. Even a trillion generations later,
the result of a program that is programmed to adjust is still
just software, no better than my alarm clock.
You and I are just machines of meat.
What you think you are is entirely up to you. I reject the same applying to myself.
Why should meat be Special and able to Think if I can duplicate
the same functions in silicon?
You can't.
This is at base a religious statement. We think using a large collection of neurons. These neurons perform various physical processes which allow them to interact. We can duplicate any physical process we understand (and we're getting to the point that we understand neuronal processes quite well), on silicon, or even in purely mathematical/computational terms. There is therefore no RATIONAL reason to believe that we could not therefore make a duplicate of the brain in silicon, or in a computational model, which could do everything our brain currently does. Such a device or computational model would therefore be able to think, feel, etc., just as does the original.
The arguments I've seen "rational" scientists presenting have in general been smoke-and-mirrors, at best. Penrose and Searle being the most obvious.
The ONLY way to effectively argue against this is to assert that there is some NONphysical -- that is, mystical/magical/supernatural -- component to a thinking human mind, something that we cannot analyze and will never be able to analyze.Not true. It could be that consciousness requires a physical process that computers are incapable of simulating. There are plenty of things Turings Machines are provably incapable of calculating.
You'd have to show a good reason that the operation of our brains could be reasonably expected to be AFFECTED by such processes. Sure, Penrose can wavy-wavy his hands and say "QUANTUM EFFECT" but there's no real good reason to believe that, or even THEORIZE it, unless you are basically assuming the conclusion.
Note: I PERSONALLY would love to believe that there's something Special About Me that means that no machine will ever match what I am.
But I don't believe it, and see no reason to, any more than I see a reason to believe in God.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A dilemma
- From: Gruff
- Re: A dilemma
- References:
- Re: A dilemma
- From: Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
- Re: A dilemma
- From: Gruff
- Re: A dilemma
- Prev by Date: Re: Words You Can't Write
- Next by Date: Re: Alchemists
- Previous by thread: Re: A dilemma
- Next by thread: Re: A dilemma
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
