I considered that, and disproved it. It's not an empirical question. If a physical system is predictable from physical law - if it is not literally magic - it is not conscious.
-
-
Because we can observe their behaviour. If it is predictable from physical models, it isn't conscious. But we don't have to be dumb about it. Find the consciousness machine in the brain. Go look to see if the AI has one. (It doesn't.)
-
It's drastically easier to look for the seat of consciousness when you know it has to escape the bounds of physics somehow. It's a very tight constraint on the search space.
-
Well yes you could call that a tight constraint! The human brain does not escape the bounds of physics. We don't have advanced AIs yet but not unreasonable to expect unpredictable behaviour
-
The human brain very plausibly escapes the bounds of physics. Physics has undecideable variables. If some of those variables are not universally undecdeable, we have a communication tunnel.
-
If AI does things that are in principle unpredictable then they are literally magic. We've found pentagrams and summoned demons, even though they're not exactly pentagram shaped.
-
it's really easy to construct a deterministic system that is in principle unpredictable. familiarize yourself with the halting problem, the three-body problem, rule 110, etc.
-
when it's as hard as it is to predict the future behavior of really simple deterministic systems, it's ridiculously unparsimonious to invoke entities entirely outside of physics and church-turing just to explain one specific genus of primates.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.