Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

“we're also in a conversation about the physical processes of a computer”

We’re also in a conversation about the physical processes of biological nervous systems.

I just don’t see how you make such a strong argument about “syntactic engines” being incapable of semantic evaluation. Do you actually understand how human consciousness emerges from physical processes? I don’t, but I’m confident there’s no magic between the syntactic localized behavior of neurons and the aggregate semantic behavior. So human consciousness must emerge from syntactic complexity.

One could argue, that AI won’t have “consciousness”, but it will likely be more aware and more self directed than humans.

Current, best effort AI is able to defeat humans in go, using heuristics for board configurations, without simulating all possible configurations. It’s not brute force or rules based. No one programmed in a set of rules for valuation.

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

Do you actually understand how human consciousness emerges from physical processes?

human science doesn't, lol.

I don’t, but I’m confident there’s no magic between the syntactic localized behavior of neurons and the aggregate semantic behavior. So human consciousness must emerge from syntactic complexity.

the reason we have to talk about language when discussing the possibility of computerised intelligence is because computers are linguistic engines; every form of input a computer can process will eventually boil down to numerical binary symbols. humans, and other animals, are capable of processing other forms of input, so it doesn't make sense to say that human consciousness arises from purely syntactic processes. but in order to prove that computers can be conscious, we'd have to prove they have a similar semantic capability to human beings (and possibly some other apes).

and obviously, the linear narrative of "syntactic language --> semantic language" doesn't make sense when describing biological animals. nor do i really know what you mean by "aggregate semantic behaviour".