= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tetronian comments on Eight questions for computationalists - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (87)
I'm currently having an exchange with Massimo Pigliucci of Rationally Speaking who might be known here due to his Bloggingheads debate with Eliezer Yudkowsky where he was claiming that "you can simulate the 'logic' of photosynthetic reactions in a computer, but you ain't gonna get sugar as output." I have a hard time to wrap my mind around his line of reasoning, but I'll try:
Let's assume that you wanted to simulate gold. What does it mean to simulate gold?
According to Wikipedia to simulate something means to represent certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected physical system.
If we were going to simulate the chemical properties of gold, would we be able to use it as a vehicle for monetary exchange on the gold market? Surely not, some important characteristics seem to be missing. We do not assign the same value to a simulation of gold that we assign to gold itself.
What would it take to simulate the missing properties? A particle accelerator or nuclear reactor.
In conclusion, we need to create gold to get gold, no simulation apart from the creation of the actual physically identical substance will do the job. Consequently, in the case of gold at least, substrate neutrality is false.
But what about Eliezer's reply to Pigliucci's photosynthesis argument? As I understand it, Eliezer's counterargument was that intelligence and consciousness are like math in the sense that the simulation is the same as the real thing. In other words, we don't care about simulated sugar because we want the physical stuff itself, but we aren't so particular when it comes to arithmetic--the same answer in any form will do.
As far as I can tell, this argument still applies to gold unless there are good reasons to think that consciousness is substrate dependent. But as Eliezer pointed out in that diavlog, that doesn't seem likely.
That reply is entirely begging the question. Whether or not consciousness is a phenomenon "like math" or a phenomenon "like photosynthesis" is exactly is being argued about. So it's not an answering argument; it's an assertion.
I completely agree--XiXiDu was summarizing Massimo Pigliucci's argument, so I figured I'd summarize Eliezer's reply. The real heart of the question, then, is figuring out which one consciousness is really like. I happen to think that consciousness is closer to math than sugar because we know that intelligence is so, and it seems to me that the rest follows logically from Minsky's idea that minds are simply what brains do. That is, if consciousness is what an intelligent algorithm feels like from the inside, then it wouldn't make much sense for it to be substrate-dependent.
This morning I followed another discussion on Facebook between David Pearce and someone else about the same topic and he mentioned a quote by Stephen Hawking:
What David Pearce and others seem to be saying is that physics doesn't disclose the nature of the "fire" in the equations. For this and other reasons I am increasingly getting the impression that the disagreement all comes down to the question if the Mathematical universe hypothesis is correct, i.e. if Platonism is correct.
None of them seem to doubt that we will eventually be able to "artificially" create intelligent agents. They don't even doubt that we will be able to use different substrates. The basic disagreement seems to be that, as Constant notices in another comment, a representation is distinct from a reproduction.
People like David Pearce or Massimo Pigliucci seem to be arguing that we don't accept the crucial distinction between software and hardware.
For us the only difference between a mechanical device, a physical object and software is that the latter is the symbolic (formal language) representation of the former. Software is just the static description of the dynamic state sequence exhibited by an object. One can then use that software (algorithm) and some sort of computational hardware and evoke the same dynamic state sequence so that the machine (computer) mimics the relevant characteristics of the original object.
Massimo Pigliucci and others actually agree about the difference between a physical thing and its mathematical representation but they don't agree that you can represent the most important characteristic as long as you do not reproduce the physical substrate.
The position hold by those people who disagree with the Less Wrong consensus on this topic is probably best represented by the painting La trahison des images. It is a painting of a pipe. It represents a pipe but it is not a pipe, it is an image of a pipe.
Why would people concerned with artificial intelligence care about all this? That is up to the importance and nature of consciousness and to what extent general intelligence is dependent upon the the brain as a biological substrate and its properties (e.g. the chemical properties of carbon versus silicon).
(Note that I am just trying to account for the different positions here and not argue in favor of substrate-dependence.)