>Any article making such a claim need to start with explaining what evidence they have that human brains are not computing devices that can be replicated or simulated.
If X and Y appear dissimilar, the burden of proof is on he who would argue they are similar.
If one contends a brain and a computer and the functions of each appear similar, then one is being disingenuous.
Surely the burden of proof is on someone claiming something is impossible? I skimmed the article but I didn't see any support for his argument beyond pointing to the limitations of existing technology, and asserting that these limits were insurmountable.
If I said I can fly by flapping my arms quickly I would assume the burden of proof would be on me to prove it as opposed to others proving that it's impossible
The more analogous claim would be "it's impossible to flap two arm-like appendages quickly and achieve flight," and the burden of proof would indeed be on you for making that claim. (Of course, in that case it would be easy to disprove by pointing to birds or even with computer simulations and toys if birds did not exist).
You can give argument though. It is concievable it is possible to prove things like: a turing machine (which is an abstract mathematical model, which we absolutely can prove negatives. See for example rice's theorem) can never achieve "human intellegence" (if you come up with a concrete definition of human intelligence). From there you can make the statement: Any physically realized device that is faithfully modelled in terms of computational power by a turing machine, cannot have "human intelligence".
Sure you can't prove that silicon devices behave like turing machines, or even that they really exist, but for the sake of this discussion, what does that matter?
We can and absolutely have proven things to be impossible.
What would you consider to be an example of that? And how does that square with the Problem of Induction which is the hole in our entire system of empirical knowledge generation?
You can’t make a Turing machine which can solve the halting problem or an algorithm which can determine whether any given mathematical statement is true.
You can prove that 2+2!=5. You could even say that, given the rules governing math, it is ‘impossible’ that 2+2=5. The domain, however, is synthetic and composed of a system of axioms and rules.
If I change the underlying axioms and rules, I could certainly prove that 2+2=5, just as I can prove that The sum of a triangles interior angles exceed 180 degrees, or that two identical number squared can equal -1. (Redefining what a straight line means for the former, and inventing an imaginary number system for the latter.)
Proving what can and cannot follow given a set of rules, however, is not what philosophers mean when they speak or impossibility in the real world.
Yes to apply that to the real world, we have to use some assumptions like, the universe isnt a giant trick, the sun will rise tomorrow, we dont live in the matrix, etc. However given the context of this discussion those are fairly reasonable assumptions.
I'm not arguing that it can't. I was merely pointing out the proper 'burden of proof.' The article was criticized for failing to demonstrate that something can't be done... that's not fair. The burden would be on the proponent of the proposition that a machine can attain general AI. That's all.
Perhaps there could be general AI... I'm not saying it can't be done. I would point out, though, that IF it is to be done, it certainly won't be by copying a brain. Nobody even knows the hell the brain works...
Maybe you are stuck on the notion of a computer as a silicon chip. Biological entities are just a special case of machine ergo it is already proved that a machine can attain general AI.
I contend the brain by definition is a computer, and so that any claim that we can not produce an artificial one implies that we'll forever be unable to replicate a process that is repeated over and over by nature through simple biochemical processes.
A duck is an entire organism with a known genetic code, suspected lineage in the tree of life and defined characteristics.
A brain is an organ within another known organism in a differing position in the tree of life with different characteristics.
A computer is a device which takes in input via some means and uses input to transform elements that together represent its internal state based on input and prior internal state resulting in output that is the result of both internal state and input arranged in a fashion such that an actor with sufficient knowledge of functioning can manipulate input in order to achieve desired output.
A programmer is such an actor.
In such a context it appears that a brain is merely programmer and computer and AI is merely the achievement of a sufficiently complex and capable system as to represent the same thing in silicon or whatever medium you prefer.
Arguing that such is impossible seems to be merely a failure of imagination.
You imagine a 'thinking' machine all you want. Doesn't change to reality of the situation that no digital device comes close to thinking.
Some find this frustrating. So, they reduce the idea of a brain to a digital computer.
Ita a confusion of the Model with that being Modelled.
A photo of you, is a representation -- or model -- of you. But, it would be silly to become so enamourwd with the photo that you begin to think YOU are a representation of the photograph.
> You imagine a 'thinking' machine all you want. Doesn't change to reality of the situation that no digital device comes close to thinking.
Doesn't it though. Someone from the 1800s would probably absolutely think it does. We have computers that can identify what is in a photo, computers that can do complex math problems (pretty sure historically, the ability to do logic was considered first and foremost what made humans intelligent and not simple "animals", its only recently with the rise of computers this has taken a back seat), computers that can translate between languages, etc. That's not the same as being human, there is no sense of self or independence of action (nor are we anywhere close to having that) but we've made amazing, almost unconcievable strives, in only 100 years. So i think its unfair to say computers dont think at all.
>Doesn't it though. Someone from the 1800s would probably absolutely think it does.
Convolutional networks and neural nets in general are cool, but hardly magical. It’s just glorified curve-fitting. A person from the 1800’s would not be all that impressed with the idea. (What’s impressive is the bread-and-butter of it... namely, the technology that enables the millions of simple calculations per millisecond.)
I'm not redefining anything. I'm applying reasonable definitions of a "computer" to the brain.
Indeed, the term was originally used about people - our electronic computers today have the name because they were taking over functions carried out by human brains.
The difference is that a brain is provably capable of computation, while a brain is not provably capable of flapping its wings and migrating between Canada and Mexico every year (without the help of the meatsuit it's driving, at least).
The word "computer" was a profession before it was a machine.
Programmers effectively emulate a compiler in their minds when they are programming. I don't see why it's so hard to accept that the brain has many "computer" capabilities, even if it's implemented with different materials.
Appearance is vague to the point of being an argument without merit. If someone can SHOW something to be dissimilar in kind not degree then it would fall upon the recipient of that argument to refute it. It is not enough to point and not explicate. One could point at our pre civilized ancestors and point out hunter gatherers can't fly to the moon or build a computer and would never do so. One could go further back yet to the prior species that would someday become humans and point out that their present limitations and claim that one could never produce the other. Both assertions would be obviously wrong only because of the advantage of hindsight.
I do not accept that there is a difference between computation and thought without some meaningful definition of thought.
> do not accept that there is a difference between computation and thought without some meaningful definition of thought.
If I know everything about the nature of X, yet I know very little about the nature of Y, it would be illogical to say "I will assume Y is like X until proven otherwise."
I think computation as a model of cognition is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that will bear fruit and at least it IS a hypothesis instead of hand waving.
It is worse to imagine that there is a physical process that exists wholly in the physical world that happens in the world within reasonable parameters cannot possibly be engineered to happen in a controlled fashion.
This is a proof that would require a major shift in physics and math and yet we are expected to accept it purely based on intuition without even a compelling theory of how it does work.
OP should have said "counter-evidence". There is plenty of evidence the brain is basically an information processing organ. It's integrating sensory data that you can interrupt and hack (i.e. visual illusions, ghost limbs), also damaging certain parts reliably affects us in the same ways like going blind or losing motor control.
It reduces to the following:
Given X, if I could create a Y such that Y=X, then X would equal Y!
That adds nothing.
It isn't a given that it is even possible to 'copy' a brain. Why would one think it is? Does not quantum mechanics preclude the possibility of copying something perfectly at the atomic scale? Indeed, even if you could perfectly copy the 'material' aspect, you will still need to copy the configuration of electrical charges that existed at the moment of copying. This too is, from what I gather from QM, inherently impossible.
Does this preclude general AI? No. But it does demonstrate the absurdity of arguments that begin, "if I could copy the brain atom by atom, then..." as such a thing is impossible.
If X and Y appear dissimilar, the burden of proof is on he who would argue they are similar.
If one contends a brain and a computer and the functions of each appear similar, then one is being disingenuous.