[eu-gene] Generative or not? cubo23

[rob at robmyers.org]

Quoting Michael Gogins <gogins at pipeline.com>:

> 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
>>
>
>
> -- 
> 'what's wrong with getting a real job?'
> To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
> http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
>