I think it is, though, because it challenges our belief that only biological entities can think, and thinking is a core part of our identity, unlike swimming.
> our belief that only biological entities can think
Whose belief is that?
As a computer scientist my perspective of all of this is as different methods of computing and we have a pretty solid foundations on computability (though, it does seem a bit frightening how many present-day devs have no background in the foundation of the Theory of Computation). There's a pretty common naive belief that somehow "thinking" is something more or distinct from computing, but in actuality there are very few coherent arguments to that case.
If, for you, thinking is distinct from computing then you need to be more specific about what thinking means. It's quite possible that "only biological entities can think" because you are quietly making a tautological statement by simply defining "thinking" as "the biological process of computation".
> thinking is a core part of our identity, unlike swimming.
What does this mean? I'm pretty sure for most fish swimming is pretty core to its existence. You seem to be assuming a lot of metaphysically properties of what you consider "thinking" such that it seems nearly impossible to determine whether or not anything "thinks" at all.
One argument for thinking being different from computing is that thought is fundamentally embodied, conscious and metaphorical. Computing would be an abstracted activity from thinking that we've automated with machines.
Now you have 3 terms you also need to provide proper definitions of. Having studied plenty of analytical philosophy prior to computer science, I can tell you that at least the conscious option is going to trip you up. I imagine the others will as well.
On top of that, these, at least at my first guess, seem to be just labeling different models of computation (i.e. computation with these properties is "thinking") but it's not clear why it would be meaningful for a specific implementation of computation to have these properties. Are there tasks that are non-computable that are "thinkable"? And again it sounds like you're wandering into tautology land.
They can be made boring by reducing them to an arbitrary choice of definition of the word "thinking", but the question is really about weather inference is in principle as powerful as human thinking, and so would deserve to be applied the same label. Which is not at all a boring question. It's equivalent to asking weather current architectures are enough to reach AGI.
> inference is in principle as powerful as human thinking
There is currently zero evidence to suggest that human thinking violates any of the basics principles of the theory of computation nor extend the existing limits of computability.
> Which is not at all a boring question.
It is because you aren't introducing any evidence to theoretically challenge what we've already know about computation for almost 100 years now.
Can you just point me to the concrete examples (the most compelling examples in the book would work) where we can see "thinking" that performs something that is currently considered to be beyond the limits of computation?
I never claimed no one speculates that's the case, I claimed there was no evidence. Just cite me a concrete example where the human mind is capable of computing something that violates the theory of computation.
> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
Fully agree, but you are specifically discussing philosophical statements. And the fact that the only response you have is to continue to pile undefined terms and hand wave metaphysics doesn't do anything to further your point.
You believe that computing machines lack something magical that you can't describe that makes them different than humans. I can't object to your feelings about that, but there is literally nothing to discuss if you can't even define what those things are, hence this discussion is, as the original parent comment mention, is "extremely boring".
The kind of hard evidence you're asking for doesn't exist for either side of the equation. There is no computational theory of the mind which we could test "in the field" to see if it indeed models all forms of human expression. All we have is limited systems which can compete with humans in certain circumscribed domains. So, the jury's very much still out on this question. But a lot of people (especially here on HN) just assume the zero hypothesis to be the computable nature of brain and indeed, the universe at large. Basically, Digital Physics [1] or something akin to it. Hence, only something that deviates from this more or less consciously adhered-to ontology is considered in need of proof.
What keeps things interesting is that there are arguments (on both sides) which everyone can weigh against each other so as to arrive at their own conclusions. But that requires genuine curiosity, not just an interest in confirming one's own dogmas. Seems like you might be more of this latter persuasion, but in case you are not, I listed a couple of references which you could explore at your leisure.
I also pointed out that one of the (if not the) greatest physicists alive wrote two books on a subject which you consider extremely boring. I would hope any reasonable, non-narcissistic person would conclude that they must have been missing out on something. It's not like Roger Penrose is so bored with his life and the many fascinating open questions he could apply his redutable mind to, that he had to pick this particular obviously settled one. I'm not saying you should come to the same conclusions as him, just plant a little doubt around how exactly "extremely boring" these questions might be :)
Whose belief is that?
As a computer scientist my perspective of all of this is as different methods of computing and we have a pretty solid foundations on computability (though, it does seem a bit frightening how many present-day devs have no background in the foundation of the Theory of Computation). There's a pretty common naive belief that somehow "thinking" is something more or distinct from computing, but in actuality there are very few coherent arguments to that case.
If, for you, thinking is distinct from computing then you need to be more specific about what thinking means. It's quite possible that "only biological entities can think" because you are quietly making a tautological statement by simply defining "thinking" as "the biological process of computation".
> thinking is a core part of our identity, unlike swimming.
What does this mean? I'm pretty sure for most fish swimming is pretty core to its existence. You seem to be assuming a lot of metaphysically properties of what you consider "thinking" such that it seems nearly impossible to determine whether or not anything "thinks" at all.