[extropy-chat] Re: [wta-talk] Why the Spike did not happen

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

They seem to buy Searle's argument and think that the development of
computational intelligence will run into unforeseen fundamental
problems.
Of course this may well be the case, but for the time being I prefer
to side with Occam and make the simplest assumption: that if evolution
has built an intelligent computer, we can do the same.
G.

On 12/4/05, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 07:28:05AM +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
>
> > For example, even with computers with more
> > processing capacity than the human brain, they don't have yet anything
>
> Let's say I have a computer with more processing capacity
> than a human brain in the volume of a sugar cube (cm^3).
> A m^3 gives me 10^6 that. Surely a factor of a mere million is going
> to make a tiny, very minor, insignificant little difference?
>
> And, surely, a cubic mile of the same is going to make a bit
> more of the same? How about a planet's volume, as a circumsolar
> computronium cloud?
>
> Even if things scale linearly (I don't think intelligence scales
> linearly with the processing volume, at least for small volumes)
> there is a lot of headroom by just adding more processing volume.
>
> > resembling a human intelligence embodied in a machine. The Searle argument
> > is quoted.
>
> Searle has catched himself in a trap of his own making, just
> as the qualia crowd.
>
> --
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org