[ExI] fun outsider's view on ai

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 10 May 2016 at 00:44, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nothing particularly profound or insightful in this AI article, but it is
> good clean fun:
>
>
>
>
> https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implausible?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6469cf0d50-Daily_Newsletter_9_May_20165_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6469cf0d50-68957125
>
>
>
> He reminds me a little of Roger Penrose’s take on the subject from a long
> time ago: he introduces two schools of thought, pokes fun at both while
> offering little or no evidence or support, then reveals he is pretty much a
> follower of one of the two: the Church of AI-theists.
>
>
>
> There are plenty of AI-theists, but nowhere have I ever seen a really good
> argument for why we can never simulate a neuron and a dendrite and
> synapses.  Once we understand them well enough, we can write a sim of one.
> We already have sims of complicated systems, such as aircraft, nuclear
> plants and such.  So why not a brain cell?   And if so, why not two, and
> why not a connectome and why can we not simulate a brain?  I have been
> pondering that question for over 2 decades and have still never found a
> good reason.  That puts me in Floridi-dismissed Church of the
> Singularitarian.
>

Penrose's argument is that neurons utilise exotic physics which is
non-computable. If this were true, we would not be able to emulate neurons
with a computer. But there is no real evidence that it is true.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/a2aeae3d/attachment.html>