[justinpaulson]

I was mainly commenting on the OP's position that the author was 'not trained in CS'.

Here is a list of things I believe that the human brain performs outside of computation:

The irrational motivations that take us over when we feel love. The way that our mood can affect a decision. Taking a walk to enjoy the beauty of the sunset. Writing a satirical short story to express a political fallacy. Painting an image that we saw in a dream. Using metaphors to explain an idea or to validate an argument. Telling a joke and understanding why it is funny. Buying a shirt because it looks cool.

There are many more. But to me, there is definitely more to the mind than simple computation. There is a quality to our experience that is completely lost when our inputs and outputs are equated to the workings of a digital computer.

[theaiguy]

Ultimately these arguments come down to qualia. But there is no reason to think qualia is a) present in other brains except your own, but b) not present in any non-brain information processing system. Philosophers of mind have tried to make that argument, but end up appealing to intuition.

In terms of computability, folks like Boden and Sloman showed in the 90s that emotion is compatible with computability. Even more so, that emotion is implementable in symbolic computation. Of course, one could declare such systems have no qualia of emotion. But can you do more than declare that, while not simultaneously creating arguments that could apply to other brains?

I get you are working on intuition. But there's fifty years of actual research been done on this. Waving your hands and appealing to your 'humble opinion' isn't how scholarship works.

[justinpaulson]

Firstly, I never said my opinion was humble.

Secondly, a good argument is not a proof. We have such a limited understanding of our own emotion and cognition that it is impossible to say that we have proven anything about how compatible emotion is with computation. Hands are continually waved over the existence of qualia and the argument, like you presented yourself, is that we have no way of proving that qualia won't exist for an artificial intelligence that has been programmed for emotional compatibility. I believe that is a fallacy, and it is side-stepping the root of the argument about qualia, and the real root of what self-realization and consciousness is. By saying, look I can make this machine do everything you do and act as if it feels like you do, you are not proving that you have encapsulated all that is cognition. You are only proving that you can mimic cognition. It could be retorted "Well how do you know this machine doesn't really feel like you feel?" I don't know that. But we really aren't learning anything about consciousness by ignoring the question with such a fallacy.

I believe AI has a very important role in rapidly evolving our way of life as we continue in this technological evolutionary cycle. However, I think it does nothing to teach us about ourselves and how our minds actually work. It is nothing more than mimicry. And nothing can be proven based on how an AI bot operates for the materialist or the idealist, so it is aimless to think that AI is how we will understand our own cognition.

[theaiguy]

> is that we have no way of proving that qualia won't exist for an artificial intelligence

You misunderstood my objection. The issue is not whether we can prove such a thing, but can we differentiate between different information processing systems in arguments that qualia exist at all. You assume qualia is a thing that brains do. On what basis do you assume anyone other than you have them, such that implies that no other systems do?

Qualia is one of those topics academics tend to roll their eyes at when it is brought up. Because it appears to do a lot, but in most cases is a variation of 'because I feel like it should be true'.

[cactusface]

If you can simulate matter, certainly you can simulate a brain. Qualia appear not to derive from pixie dust but accumulated experience in the world. You might need to train a brain for a long time to develop qualia. You might not be able to copy qualia from one brain to another. I think these are the main objections, but I'm not sure.

Personally, I'm not convinced that simulating matter is feasible, never mind a living organism, never mind an intelligent living organism, which is what the brain is, when you account for all of it.

We know how far away Andromeda is. We know how to build a spaceship. Therefore, it is possible to go to Andromeda. Is it though? What if the Earth doesn't have enough resources? How big is your brain simulator allowed to be?

[sudo_free_cake]

^this guy, thank you

Philosophy of mind should be part of education so that people learn duality is bullshit.

[nitwit005]

You're just describing behaviors that seem strange or unusual and then asserting that they are somehow not computation.

It doesn't matter what happens inside the brain. If it's governed by normal physics (no divine magic), there will be some computer program equivalent to it. We know that's true, even though we don't know how the brain works.

[nitrogen]

Physics is (are?) essentially computational processes. The brain is a physical object, and therefore is a computer/computable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation

That doesn't take anything away from the qualia of life; if anything, it makes life that much more amazing.