[azan_]

Either human-like attributes can be described using physics or they are magic. If they can be described using physics then they can be simulated. If they can be simulated then they can be simulated in any Turing complete system, include AoE II.

[armada651]

By that logic an abacus has human-like attributes. Just because it can simulate the processes involved does not mean it is at all practical to compute them.

Besides, LLMs are not a simulation of the physics involved in human consciousness to begin with.

[VeninVidiaVicii]

This is the right take. In my opinion, AI can’t ever be conscious but I can’t really prove it - moreover it’s not even a scientific stance because it’s not even falsifiable. But it probably doesn’t matter.

[measurablefunc]

Physically describable doesn't mean computable. You're making too many unjustified logical leaps which makes your argument circular & conflates "physical" w/ "computable".

[red75prime]

We don't know any physical processes that allow to compute Turing-incomputable functions. An assumption that the brain uses such a process is not based on any positive knowledge.

[measurablefunc]

Argument from ignorance is not as well known as other fallacies but very common in discussions about sentience, consciousness, and computability, i.e. not having evidence for something doesn't mean that thing is false. It is possible there are physical processes that are not computable & not being aware of such processes doesn't mean the alternative (everything is computable) is true.

So instead of making any unjustifiable claims like "everything physical is computable" you should instead just say "I believe consciousness is computable and that is why it is possible to instantiate it on any computational substrate, including strategy games like Age of Empires, properly arranged dominoes, and water wheels".

[red75prime]

OK. I know that we haven't found any processes that violate the physical Church-Turing thesis, and I believe that we will not find them in the brain that got intelligent enough only after scaling to a hundred billion of neurons and hundreds of trillions of synapses. And, BTW, we don't have theories (except the controversial Orch OR) that allow such computations.

[slopinthebag]

Key word being simulated

[red75prime]

Taking this word as a "key" just leads to a philosophical zombie dead end which is not tied to anything observable.

[slopinthebag]

"Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in both cases."

[red75prime]

You can easily find a rebuttal. Why do you think that consciousness is like rain and not like, say, arithmetic?

[slopinthebag]

Sorry, how is arithmetic different?

[Joker_vD]

Because computers don't actually do arithmetic, they simulate it. When you take 2 sticks, add 2 sticks, and obtain 4 sticks, that's arithmetic. Having a raised flag with one lowered flag to the right and the left of it and then changing this configuration to having a single raised flag with two lowered flags right to it, and interpreting this charade as having added 2 to 2 and obtained 4 — that's just a simulation. It didn't actually have added 2 and 2 of anything.

[Joker_vD]

"A human brain runs a perfect model of human consciousness. Some people make the mistake of supposing that that makes human brains somehow conscious."