im not gonna waste my time watching a philosophical circlejerk.

ahahahaha

so wait

hes claiming that a computer is incapable of replicating a human mind. that is patently false.

Roger Penrose, one of the leading scientists of our time, renowned beyond any and every doubt, is just "philosophical circlejerk"?

you cannot make that statement actually, and at the very least respond to the arguments he raises

How about you offer them to me in your own words.

the notion is that there are elements of non-computability in human thought, things which *cannot be described in algorithmic sense* (not to even go to the issue of qualia); some forms for example include the human ability to grasp the infinite tiling problem which for the machine intelligence (being based on computation), impossible to grasp - it can never know whether or not the general tiling pattern *will go on forever,* but a human mind can see this readily and for us it is obvious. He also points out to deeper problems in physics and how those problems may in part be due to the fact that we haven't yet accounted for the aspect of non-computability in our theories of the world, even though we observe it on regular basis.

Trust me when I say though he makes this case much better than I can, so I suggest you watch it. There are also many more arguments that he makes, more cases he uses, etc. He obviously has written books on the subject as well which are worth a read.

Xi Jinping is a great leader

I mean

humans DONT conceive the tiling problem.

we cut corners.

its a generalization.

thats not a problem of computation, we arent literally computing the infinite tiling problem.

our minds just dismiss it.

it takes the principles we know are true, and we just continue to assume its true.

thats computable my dude.

There are arguments beyond those that Penrose makes though about the problem of transferability of the mind to a machine, which have to do with the

a) historical
b) dynamic
c) totalising

aspects of the brain. Scale put aside (which silicon computers can't even begin to address yet), the brain is a dynamic entity which evolves in time and in totalised form. There's no clear way to transform something like this, over to a completely different substrate. Further, there are aspects of chemistry and physics to consider here which aren't yet thought out to a degree that could even begin to approach a satisfying answer. So at the very least you should consider that its certainly not a done deal yet and that ultimately we aren't sure *what* will emerge out of this technological trajectory.

And again, watch the video if you want *a better presentation* of it than what I gave. There's active debate about this, and Penrose is after all a mathematician as well as a physicist. He can deliver the point home better than I can, seeing how I'm *neither.*

Well, yes. thats obvious. if we are trying to replicate organic processes you are going to have to compute on a level of detail that is incomprehensible to us.

however, that does not make it impossible, and it does not mean that computer intelligence has to be created in a similar way to us.

We have already created working models of worm nervous systems.

🤷‍♂️

and i can hardly see why banning general intelligence for safety concerns will address any problems we conceive of.

theoretically, literally anyone could create a general intelligence if they had the time and resources.

are you really oyveying me.

> literally anyone could create a general intelligence if they had the time and resources.

Which are absolutely vast in question. Resources? What resources? How much energy production? How much processing power? How much memory capacity? How much cooling is needed for this? There are a shit ton of limitations present here I think that are not often accounted for. Its not like building something in your garage, I think.

Think outside the box man.

intelligence is just a bunch of dumb things working together.

theoretically someone could create an evolving virus, infecting computers to use their computational power to build a more intelligent gestalt.

And thats just what I can think of.

Synthetics and synthetic lovers are unwelcome in the ecofash state

Considering we don't actually have a clear *theory* on the way the brain works, only glimpses of it - hell, we discover new sub-regions of the brain rather frequently - and much less for what creativity, intelligence, emotion, etc. are in actual fact or how all the processes associated with these fields of experience work, you can't say that intelligence is just a bunch of dumb things working together. You quite literally can't make this statement, nobody can. Nor can I claim the contrary; we quite literally don't know.

@Bearer Of The Curse objectively bluepilled. real ecofash want to spread life across the universe, the synthetic revolution is just a necessary step to take life and lift it into the stars.

“hurr durr i want to live and die on this rock and accomplish nothing”

The nose grows every time you talk

okay pagan

Synthetic revolution is not necessary to take us to the stars actually

objectively false

Humanity is not the end of evolution.

you underestimate the power of nature.

Being replaced is not evolution

You can literally build a generation starship like mobile O Neill Cylinder type and then have generations live and die there as they are en route to Alpha Centauri, Barnard's Star, etc. Humans can get there just fine as humans.

@Bearer Of The Curse if you think of it like that we are replaced constantly.