So the Lucas-Penrose Argument basically proves that we are not deterministic robots and that AI will never be conscious. Cool.
So the Lucas-Penrose Argument basically proves that we are not deterministic robots and that AI will never be conscious.
So the Lucas-Penrose Argument basically proves that we are not deterministic robots and that AI will never be conscious. Cool.
>Penrose
His mathematicians ego has him believing in quantum woo fairy tails. Even if it were the case that quantum mumbo jumbo is a vital prerequisite for creating a thinking being, there is no reason a computer connected to a glorified geiger counter couldn't do it.
Computers will have more free will than you.
There is no rigorous definition for "free will", nor any empirical test for it. It isn't a scientific concept in the first place. You may as well be speaking of "souls".
I do call it soul. Now what? Are you gonna insult me?
I don't care if you believe in souls. I have no problem with other people believing in souls, free will, or any religion. None of that bothers me.
All that I'm saying is that none of it is scientific. If you can't empirically measure a phenomena, then it's not scientific.
Sounds like a big cope from you.
Provide an empirical test for any of it.
Not necessary for smart people.
Okay man. I don't have a problem with you believing it. But "it is self evident" isn't science.
The purpose of qualia and thus free will within the context of natural selection is self-learning. In other words, a real mind can start from zero and infinitely increase its axioms list. Whenever its axioms are wrong it experiences pain, but it has free will so it can try to solve the logical problem or not. So its behavior is really unpredictable, as opposed to an automaton of same size but with fixed programming, state being set aside. But maybe you are not even interested because you are so depressed and dumb(just maybe).
There's no need for rude remarks. Personally I believe in free will, I just don't consider this to be a scientific belief.
sorry sweaty that's been deboonked
https://journalpsyche.org/files/0xaa25.pdf
I don't think you can prove there's only one way to implement a hypercomputer that does the thing.
nope.
it is impossible to prove that we could have done otherwise. you will never be able to disprove deterrminism.
>and that AI will never be conscious.
Not necessarily. A quantum computer could potentially solve that problem.
>my belief is non-scientific therefore it's correct
Imagine being so moronic you think Penrose knows shit about anything other than physics.
1. Why is a physicist not allowed to have expertise in other subjects as well? Can you show me which physical law precludes a physicist's acquiration of knowledge in other fields?
2. Penrose is not just a physicist but also a mathematician. He has a degree in math. Theory of computation is a topic of math. So he is indeed not just intellectually but also formally academically qualified to talk about it. In particular, he is more qualified than you.