[jibal]

>Clearly TMs can be conscious

It's a lie to claim that I said or even implied this.

OTOH, the "camp that Turing machines can't be conscious" is pure ideology and is based on repeatedly proven logic errors--Lucas was known to be wrong about Godel before Penrose came along and embraced his errors. And it's very common for people in that camp to project their own unsubstantiated baseless faith "that Turing machines can't be conscious" (which for Penrose, like many others in the camp, was a consequence of a semi-religious metaphysical notion that he wasn't "just a computer") onto rational informed people, with rhetoric like "people in that have unwavering faith in the idea that consciousness arises from computable processes" -- it's the logically default position, a consequence of intelligence and knowledge, not faith. The hilarious thing is that "consciousness arises from quantum effects" doesn't get the no-TM faithers what they want--they're still "just" machines, even if the machines use qubits rather than bits.

[sarchertech]

Man you’re replying all over the place, I’m having a hard time keeping up. You’re also spending a lot of time on arguing with someone who has been discredited over a theory that has been discredited.

Penrose and Lucas’ argument may or may not be correct, but that still doesn’t imply that consciousness can arise from computable processes. There is no reason that it should. There is absolutely nothing to suggest this should be the default position.

The only way to get to this position is through faith. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong. But it’s not a falsifiable position since you can’t prove consciousness.

[Retric]

There’s nothing to suggest it shouldn’t.

Keeping consciousness undefined means the requirements to form it are also undefined. There’s no way kizzip can arise from computers, there’s no way kizzip can arise from anything other than computers.

[sarchertech]

If you agree that nothing implies that it should and nothing implies that it shouldn’t. Picking one side or the other and declaring that should be the default is an unsupported statement of belief.

It is perfectly fine for you to adopt that belief. My issue is in declaring that belief to be self-evident support for calling someone a crank.

[jibal]

Indeed there is nothing to suggest that it shouldn't and in fact everything suggests that it should. There's a reason that Penrose goes to such lengths to try--erroneously--to prove that Godel's theorems are beyond the grasp of computers ... which is bizarre since they are theorems of arithmetic and as such can be mechanically derived. The default position is that consciousness, whatever it is, is a physical process of the brain, and the default position is that the processes of the human brain are subject to the Church-Turing thesis. People who say otherwise frankly have no idea what they are talking about. And when they proclaim that they are in "the camp that says that TMs cannot produce consciousness" then it's intellectually dishonest to an extreme to deny that they are acting on faith, and to later pretend that they have an open mind and that it's the people who actually have an education in this arena who have a faith-based position.

[manic_monday]

The default position only matters if we have no proof of any position.