[eu-gene] Generative or not? cubo23

[Michael Gogins]

It is an open question in philosophy whether humans are Turing machines. If 
so then computers may some day be conscious and think as we do. If not then 
computers (at least those that are Turing machines) may never be conscious 
or truly think.

The question is extraordinarily difficult. It is not a scientific question 
because in principle a computer could provide an effective simulation of a 
human being, whether or not the computer was in fact conscious or truly 
thinking.

There is a deeper question inside this, whether Turing machines can 
effectively model natural law. The answer to this is probably no, since 
quantum theory predicts true randomness in natural phenomena, which lies 
beyond the ability of any program to compute (see Chaitin's Omega). Finite 
programs can only be pseudo-random.

Therefore, it is conceivable that human beings are not Turing machines. In 
my view, it is even likely.

Regards,
Mike Gogins

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Hart" <dahart at gmail.com>
To: "generative art" <eu-gene at generative.net>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: [eu-gene] Generative or not? cubo23


>> > True, we haven't yet found a reason why computers can't think or
>> > program themselves.  But I think the bigger problem is that there's
>> > also nothing theoretical that allows machines to program themselves
>> > either.
>>
>> Your second sentence is false.
>> Antoinne gave an example of a programming language that supports
>> self-modifying code.
>
>
> I already made a distinction between self-modifying code and
> programming.  When I said programming, I mean writing something new,
> with intent.  There's nothing at all special about self-modifying
> code.  I've written self-modifying code.  It is no closer to
> artificial intelligence than static code.  But no computer has ever
> actually programmed itself, and noone has ever contructed any theory
> that proves this will ever be possible, or provides any mechanism or
> framework for it.  It may in fact be possible, but whether it is
> possible is not yet known.  The fact that it hasn't been proven
> impossible does not mean that it is or will be possible, it could mean
> that the proof of impossibililty will be discovered ten years from
> now, or it could mean that this subject it too complicated, and we'll
> never figure out whether its possible or not.
>
> This is analogous to the earlier discussion about interactivity versus
> reactivity.  When Alex's AI guru friend said no computer has ever been
> truly interactive, he's simply saying that true machine consciousness
> has never existed yet, and he's right.  The software that we currently
> call interactive, are interactive in the same way that a rock hitting
> water is interactive.  The rock and water react to each other in
> physical ways and change each other's movements, but is there meaning
> in the interaction, are they having a conversation?
>
> --
> david.
>
> -- 
> 'what's wrong with getting a real job?'
> To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
> http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
>