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.

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Computers will have more free will than you.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        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".

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          I do call it soul. Now what? Are you gonna insult me?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds like a big cope from you.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Provide an empirical test for any of it.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not necessary for smart people.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay man. I don't have a problem with you believing it. But "it is self evident" isn't science.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          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).

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's no need for rude remarks. Personally I believe in free will, I just don't consider this to be a scientific belief.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    sorry sweaty that's been deboonked
    https://journalpsyche.org/files/0xaa25.pdf

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think you can prove there's only one way to implement a hypercomputer that does the thing.

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    nope.

    it is impossible to prove that we could have done otherwise. you will never be able to disprove deterrminism.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >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

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine being so moronic you think Penrose knows shit about anything other than physics.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *