[narrator]

This is all a bunch of sentimental bullshit. I don't know why people pursue this doomed line of reasoning. The problem is that you can't distinguish free will from not free will in any meaningful way.

A much more fruitful challenge to the aliveness of computers is to ask a singulatarian to show us any deep neural net that can fold proteins in constant time like physical reality can instead of exponential time like a computer algorithm can. Then I will believe that computers are alive and mind uploading is possible.

[iamleppert]

I really like your argument about protein folding. It's another interest area of reversible computing. That is, we will never be able to create a more powerful computational structure that is itself an implementation of the state of matter itself. It will always be less efficient and require more space or energy to represent than nature can do. That is unless we can find methods or create artificial substances or circumstances that would otherwise be impossible or improbable for nature to create. Man made substances come to mind, that have structures and mechanical properties that far exceed anything found naturally.

[andybak]

I'm no expert on protein folding but isn't there a more mundane explanation? There's plenty of physical processes that a computer can't simulate because reality is massively parallel to a degree that a computer isn't. I'm not sure that would explain the constant vs exponential discrepancy but I'm not sure I see the connection between that and "aliveness".

Or maybe I do. I'm seeing a glimmer but I don't want to put words in your mouth.