If brains were just very fast and powerful computers, then neuroscientist should be able to work with computers and engineers on brains.
Does not follow. Different architectures require different specialisations. One is research into something nature presents us, the other (at least the engineering part) is creating something. Completely different fields. And btw the analytical tools neuroscientists have are not exactly stellar, that’s why they can’t understand microprocessors (the paper is tongue in cheek but also serious).
But they are not equivalent.
They are. If you doubt that, you do not understand computation. You can read up on Turing equivalence yourself.
Consciousness, intelligence, memory, world modeling, motor control and input consolidation are way more complex than just faster computing.
The fuck has “fast” to do with “complex”. Also the mechanisms probably aren’t terribly complex, how the different parts mesh together to give rise to a synergistic whole creates the complexity. Also I already addressed the distinction between “make things run” and “make them run fast”. A dog-slow AGI is still an AGI.
The brain is not a Turing machine. It does not process tokens one at a time.
And neither are microprocessors Turing machines. A thing does not need to be a Turing machine to be Turing complete.
Turing completeness is a technology term
Mathematical would be accurate.
it shares with Turing machines the name alone,
Nope the Turing machine is one example of a Turing complete system. That’s more than “shares a name”.
Turing’s philosophical argument was not meant to be a test or guarantee of anything. Complete misuse of the concept.
You’re probably thinking of the Turing test. That doesn’t have to do anything with Turing machines, Turing equivalence, or Turing completeness, yes. Indeed, getting the Turing test involved and confused with the other three things is probably the reason why you wrote a whole paragraph of pure nonsense.
Yo if you’re ever in the mood, I’d love to talk more about the subject with you. You might be the only person I’ve ever seen to actually talk about this topic the way I understand it.
No this guy actually understands what he’s talking about. He may not be articulating it the best, but his argument is not false. What he’s essentially saying is that based on what we understand now, the brain must be a machine in some sense that can do computations.
The only reason this is the case is because logically unless new physics arises this must be the case. So it’s not the brain is a computer like we have now, it’s that all things that process and handle information systematically must do computation. What that looks like and what each unit does it what we don’t get.
Does not follow. Different architectures require different specialisations. One is research into something nature presents us, the other (at least the engineering part) is creating something. Completely different fields. And btw the analytical tools neuroscientists have are not exactly stellar, that’s why they can’t understand microprocessors (the paper is tongue in cheek but also serious).
They are. If you doubt that, you do not understand computation. You can read up on Turing equivalence yourself.
The fuck has “fast” to do with “complex”. Also the mechanisms probably aren’t terribly complex, how the different parts mesh together to give rise to a synergistic whole creates the complexity. Also I already addressed the distinction between “make things run” and “make them run fast”. A dog-slow AGI is still an AGI.
And neither are microprocessors Turing machines. A thing does not need to be a Turing machine to be Turing complete.
Mathematical would be accurate.
Nope the Turing machine is one example of a Turing complete system. That’s more than “shares a name”.
You’re probably thinking of the Turing test. That doesn’t have to do anything with Turing machines, Turing equivalence, or Turing completeness, yes. Indeed, getting the Turing test involved and confused with the other three things is probably the reason why you wrote a whole paragraph of pure nonsense.
Yo if you’re ever in the mood, I’d love to talk more about the subject with you. You might be the only person I’ve ever seen to actually talk about this topic the way I understand it.
Dear lord, I found Elon’s Lemmy account.
No this guy actually understands what he’s talking about. He may not be articulating it the best, but his argument is not false. What he’s essentially saying is that based on what we understand now, the brain must be a machine in some sense that can do computations.
The only reason this is the case is because logically unless new physics arises this must be the case. So it’s not the brain is a computer like we have now, it’s that all things that process and handle information systematically must do computation. What that looks like and what each unit does it what we don’t get.
Elon, judging from his twitter takes, understands this stuff even less than you do.