/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14887820
>The general intelligence algorithm requires the full robustness of all the molecular processes of a biological brain/wetware computer.
What's potentially valid: Claiming AI systems require a biological substrate to produce general intelligence through *identical* methods to what human brains use.
What's invalid: Claiming the way brains work is the only method AI systems can ever use in order to produce general intelligence.
In fact all of the too many to list here innovations / successes of AI have involved methods not at all identical to the methods biological brains use. And using other methods instead has resulted in performance gains thousands of times over compared to human brains.
I would estimate a near 0% chance AI systems will be reproducing the human brain cell for cell for general intelligence. It'll use its own completely different methods going by recent history.
Reproducing the entire brain (or body if we want to get pedantic) cell for cell is basically the worst case scenario for general intelligence. It's what you would do when all else fails since it's almost certainly filled with processes and content not necessary for general intelligence. The fact you can still have a passing instance of general intelligence and conscious behavior despite having a literal 1/2 of your brain removed is some evidence for the idea the brain has more to it than what's strictly needed to reproduce general intelligence.

>>14799177
Yeah, I mean of you're willing to say:
>I trust future tech will somehow take my dead frozen brain and reanimate me in the year 30XX.
Then you might as well say
>I trust even better future tech will somehow take everyone who ever lived on Earth and reanimate them in the year 80XX.
As long as we're invoking unknown future magic tech I don't see why the future people won't eventually just get everyone regardless of if they have frozen brains to work with or not. They could use time machines or perfect reverse decay ray guns or whatever.
All preserving your brain would do is make it easier, which actually means you'd be setting yourself up to be part of the beta reanimation project where the future people don't know what they're doing yet so they'll probably fuck up and bring you back as a retarded vegetable, vs. if you make it harder to reanimate yourself by not preserving your brain so you aren't reanimated until the technology for it is in peak form.

>>14772759
Not him, but you don't really have a basis for fundamentally differentiating between what programs (allegedly must) do vs. what organisms do.
Unless you're arguing brains are made out of magic, they should be finite and limited to cause and effect operations that can be reproduced. And more than that, there's no reason to believe you can't get the same or even better results than a brain using an alternative to a 100% slavishly constructed replica.
Chess is kind of silly to dismiss as an accomplishment also since the academic consensus before AI overtook human players was that it was too deep of a game for a program to ever become proficient at it, let alone reach where it is now with 40 chess engines at >3K Elo when not a single human grandmaster has ever broken that score.
And even moreso with Go as an accomplishment since that one's even less amenable to brute force tactics.
You seem to dismiss the learning and decision mechanisms that go beyond brute force as "guessing" for dubious reasons.

>>14499114
>idk your point
The point is we have examples like phlogiston of things people believed exist which really don't at all, and not just in the sense where they had a less complicated version but the same general phenomenon. Phlogiston wasn't an earlier version of oxygen and in fact learning about oxygen is what allowed for the realization nothing like phlogiston ever existed since everything about it was contradicted.
Which goes back to the earlier point about someone in the future coming up with a sound physical modeling of some not yet known phenomenon which they happen to call "consciousness" in that future wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with the things not defined physically that people call "consciousness" here in our time.
At the most basic level: You seem to want to be able to say "we know there's this thing called consciousness regardless of if we don't have the details hammered out yet," while my view on this is nobody has come up with a physically defined / coherent "consciousness" concept in the way people have effectively defined physical systems like levers or pulleys, or even more complicated phenomena like a storm.
>What is your educated geuss as to how the grand magic tricks of conciousness works?
My educated guess is that all the things called "consciousness" today aren't coherently defined physical phenomena and that anything in the distant future called "consciousness" that might actually constitute a well defined physical process won't have much or anything to do with today's uses for that word. To get extra speculative I'd bet more on the label just getting retired rather than being applied to something well defined in the future, much like phlogiston was. I'm not one of the many anons here who refuse to accept the possibility there's simply nothing of substance to "consciousness" beyond confused language and the muddling together of a bunch of features of real phenomena that don't work the way we instinctively believe.

>>14489673
Nobody ever succeeds at knowing who the important adults of the future will be based on the apparent intelligence of children.
Basically all children are retarded and trying to find "the next Einstein" is an even dumber version of astrology for pseuds.