tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post1013013150283838357..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Interview with Greg EganRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-74430827887199060532009-11-05T16:48:57.875+11:002009-11-05T16:48:57.875+11:00I believe one issue the Touring Principle does not...I believe one issue the Touring Principle does not cover is that conscious understanding requires a certain amount of simultaneous modeling, e.g. sufficient working memory, to grasp complex relationships. Our system is in fact highly parallel.<br /><br />This is where simple machines and simple minds have the disadvantage.<br /><br />It is different from executing a single stream of tasks.Harald Striepehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06582880871632720395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36760030830891967552009-09-14T03:56:46.974+10:002009-09-14T03:56:46.974+10:00I seriously doubt if Turing completeness has any p...I seriously doubt if Turing completeness has any practical use in this. By the same argument you could say that earthworms have the same hardware as us (neurons, sensors, etc.), so in theory they should be able to understand us. But the complexity of our brain is several orders of magnitude higher than theirs. Then I can also envisage aliens having much more complex brains than us, with modes of thinking that we simply cannot grasp.wsindanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-8785186009000760822009-09-12T23:50:16.925+10:002009-09-12T23:50:16.925+10:00We already know that an Einstein was able to expla...We already know that an Einstein was able to explain to us (well, those of us who aren't too stupid, which is sort of the point) everything he thought up, and I don't doubt that an alien who's only moderately smarter than an Einstein would manage to explain to him everything it knew. All of this is consistent with me, Einstein and the alien all being turing machines, so one wonders how important the point really is:<br />- that stuff about me being able to understand all the thoughts of Edward Witten given arbitrary amounts of time doesn't do that much given that my time is quite limited.<br />- Intelligence seems to be more about the stuff you're running in your brain than about the equipment it runs on. This is true even of computer software - both Chessmaster and Rybka run on the same hardware, but the latter plays Chess about 400 ELO points better.Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-46648730301572571162009-09-12T21:00:01.670+10:002009-09-12T21:00:01.670+10:00Actually there's precedent on this point in an...Actually there's precedent on this point in analytic philosophy from <a href="http://oolongiv.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/davidson_on-the-very-idea.pdf" rel="nofollow">Donald Davidson</a>. I'm very fond of his attack on conceptual schemes because it has two major implications at least in my life. The first is that if the aliens are thinking they're translatable, as Egan says, given enough time. The second implication is that you get to say bullshit when someone tells you that religion and science are fundamentally 'different ways of knowing' and we therefore can't compare their conclusions.That Guy Montaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387637105335886493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-39969775777951128852009-09-12T12:33:36.868+10:002009-09-12T12:33:36.868+10:00Greg Egan is formally correct: one thing they tell...Greg Egan is formally correct: one thing they tell you early on in Computing 101 is that a ticker tape machine is equivalent to any computer, regardless of power.<br /><br />On the other hand, conscious minds may also be equivalent in terms of ability to decipher, understand, etc -- but they way they think and the conclusions they reach may be fundamentally different depending on the chassis and environment.Athena Andreadishttp://www.starshipreckless.com/noreply@blogger.com