Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jacksoncarter 5803 days ago
The argument that computers can't think derives from the idea that there are noncomputational processes at work in the brain. Essentially, we don't know how certain thoughts arrive in our mind. We can't create an algorithm to mimic our chain-of-thought generator.

But that doesn't mean we can't create a computer that can have similar noncomputational "thoughts".

People must choose, when a computer need not choose. What I mean is, a computer can shut down. A human mind cannot -- and continue to live. When a computer "observes" -- so to speak -- stimuli it cannot handle or are beyond its capacity, it does not make random choices about what to do now. We do not trust randomness. Sometimes, however, humans have no option but randomness. This is why in a crowd of 100 each one will react differently to the same stimulus. If it suddenly gets very cold, some will shiver, some will leave, some will get up and jump around.

In most cases, Computer systems aren't even allowed to accept input that isn't known to be valid. Minds have to all the time.

When you begin to predict the future and that's largely what the human mind is -- a future prediction machine, then it becomes even more complex. It requires memory. Concoctions from memory or assumptions. We don't let computers assume.

In many ways, we are holding computers back. Because we are afraid. We are afraid of what they will decide for us. We are afraid of random. We need control. We haven't subjected computers to survival of the fittest.

If we did, then by the law of large numbers, eventually, like I suppose is true with many humans, one will survive that we can't explain how. We won't know how that computer made all the right decisions the whole time.

We don't know how to program computers to accept any input. White is the maximum color. Black is the darkest. But computers could see much darker than black and much brighter than white. How can we control something like that? We can't. We won't be able to. It will see and know thinks we can't imagine.

It's silly to think computers can't.

1 comments

"People must choose, when a computer need not choose." Perhaps I'm not understanding something, but that seems to be obviously false. A human always has the option of being unsure in the face of non-computable statements like "You can't know that this sentence is true" or such.
Imagine a dataset where the inputs are to be in a range from 1-100, but for some reason unknown to the programmers when the program was written, there is a value of 4,000.

In the real world, a human must decide what to do with that 4,000. A computer would crash or throw an error or something like that even though the data may actually be valid.