Are humans algorithms?

[Anonymous No.12025446]

I have just finished reading Homo Deus by Yuval Harari and he writes the following (paraphrased):

1) Science is increasingly coming to the view that organisms and algorithms and that life is essentially data processing

2) Intelligence is decoupling from consciousness

3) Non-conscious but super intelligent algorithms (first designed by humans but self-developed via machine learning & artificial neural networks) will be able to know us better than we know ourselves (since we are algorithms ourselves, see point 1).

If these steps are logically correct, then we can assert that these non-conscious algorithms, once fully developed, will essentially make humans, with their pitiful data processing systems, obsolete in society.

My question is whether you think 1) is true. Are humans/organisms really just algorithms and is life just data processing?

[Anonymous No.12025472]

Yes. I can't wait to marry my Chinese room waifu.

[Anonymous No.12025526]

>>12025446
wolfram has theorized that entropy is an encryption algorithm of sorts. everything observable is an agent/subject of entropy
>2) Intelligence is decoupling from consciousness
i don't believe this, you need intelligence to have a coherent model of the world, to be conscious you need the ability to reason, whatever that may mean.
>3) Non-conscious but super intelligent algorithms will be able to know us better than we know ourselves
algorithms are not conscious, big corps are using big data analysis and manipulation even now, revealing things about us that maybe not any single human could ever know. the algorithm is a utility of it's creator if such is present, an important distinction to be made is that knowledge =/= data
>Are humans/organisms really just algorithms and is life just data processing
everything can be said to be an algorithm of the universal laws of physics, so that doesn't really give any insight in itself

[Anonymous No.12025539]

>>12025526
in conclusion
>Are humans algorithms?
sure but in this same context everything is, and this doesn't give any new insights about nature

[Anonymous No.12025541]

>>12025472
I can't wait to BECOME a Chinese room. I'm obsessed with the idea. I think about it all the time, how to find a way to erode my self awareness, and replace everything with a set of rules. I'm convinced I'm halfway there.

[Anonymous No.12025548]

>>12025526
>i don't believe this, you need intelligence to have a coherent model of the world, to be conscious you need the ability to reason, whatever that may mean.
You really don't. Google is intelligent. It is not conscious.

[Anonymous No.12025563]

>>12025526
Intelligence is required for consciousness, consciousness is not required for intelligence.

[Anonymous No.12025571]

>>12025446
Yes, everything is a computation

[Anonymous No.12025574]

>>12025548
>>12025563
it's a little counter intuitive but i agree

[Anonymous No.12025582]

>>12025526
Not a physicist - can you explain Wolfram?

[Anonymous No.12025600]

>>12025582
all i know is that his implication is that it could be reversed

[Anonymous No.12025605]

>>12025446
No. Data processing is just the way us humans came up with to understand the world around us. These theories come and go based on what the new cool fad is.

Like in the ancient world we were 'descendants of the gods', in 18th-19th century everything was a math equation, in the 20th century everything was a machine, and now that computers and programming are our 'latest technology', everything is 'data processing'.

[Anonymous No.12025615]

>>12025605
there is a clear difference between believing in a deity and actually understanding a mathematical proof

[Anonymous No.12025716]

>>12025615
One can do both.

[Anonymous No.12025723]

>>12025716
yet the distinction is jarringly unsubtle

[Anonymous No.12025733]

>>12025446
>Science is increasingly coming to the view
point of order. "science" has no views. it is simply a process. individual scientists can have views, and if enough of them share the same view it becomes a consensus.
the rest of the statements seem to be just bollocks really

[Anonymous No.12025809]

>>12025446
>2) Intelligence is decoupling from consciousness

People say: Machines will never be able to do the things we really value like compose a symphony.

Computer scientist: Machines make a symphony.

People say: machines will never produce what we really value like consciousness.

Computer scientist: Machine make intelligent consciousness.

And that puts an end to premise 2.

[Anonymous No.12026128]

>>12025446
Depends on how far you stretch that term.

[Anonymous No.12026136]

>>12025446
Autism genuinely is the next step in human evolution and yet its treated as a disability

[Anonymous No.12026218]

>>12025446
Yes this is true. Its all feelings controlled by your genes. Not directly of course. But your development, your brain, your whole being is just a product of genes interacting with an environment.

However i do take issue with 'life is data processing' as our brains do not handle 'bits' of information. It is not obvious what qualia is. It could be an emergent phenomena of an algorithm. 'Man is not a piano key'

[Anonymous No.12026271]

>>12025446
>1) Science is increasingly coming to the view that organisms and algorithms and that life is essentially data processing
I don't know.
>2) Intelligence is decoupling from consciousness
Half true I think. Not all types of intelligence is decoupled from consciousness.
>3) Non-conscious but super intelligent algorithms (first designed by humans but self-developed via machine learning & artificial neural networks) will be able to know us better than we know ourselves (since we are algorithms ourselves, see point 1).
Half true.

[Anonymous No.12026597]

>>12025548
Everything that exchanges information is conscious. Google is on the very low end of the spectrum when it comes to this. Would anyone here put it under or above the consciousness of a fly?

[Anonymous No.12026744]

>>12026597
So is a rock conscious then?

[Anonymous No.12026756]

>>12026744
It could be, but in a very limited way, maybe not even aware it exists as such...just aware.

[Anonymous No.12026871]

>>12025446
>My question is whether you think 1) is true.
1) is undoubtedly true, but I'm not sure about 2).

[Anonymous No.12027052]

>>12025446
1 is false, but Jewish materialists will continue to make the claim.

[Anonymous No.12027859]

>>12026744
No? Because it doesn't exchange any information.

[Anonymous No.12027918]

>>12026136
Troof

[Anonymous No.12027969]

>>12025446
>1) Science is increasingly coming to the view that organisms and algorithms and that life is essentially data processing
Information as an ontological framework is becoming increasingly popular, but it is nothing more than a theoretical framework, a perspective to look at something. It has little meaning on its own, and asking whether it is "true" is like asking whether the front view of a person is the "true" aspect of the human form rather than the view from behind.

Additionally, one should be wary of reductionist claims
>It's all just God, bro
>No wait it's vortices
>Nah, atoms
>Uhh, I mean sub-atomic particles, quarks and shit
>Strings. Yes, it's definitely strings.
>What if I told you it's all information bro, just trust me
I left out a few steps, but I hope you get the point.

>2) Intelligence is decoupling from consciousness
What humans mean when they use the word "intelligence" has indeed shifted to no longer require consciousness.

>3) Non-conscious but super intelligent algorithms (first designed by humans but self-developed via machine learning & artificial neural networks) will be able to know us better than we know ourselves (since we are algorithms ourselves, see point 1).
This does not follow at all from 1 or 2. Presumably you believe a human of moderate intelligence is more intelligent that an ant. But you do know what the role is of this particular ant in the hive? What it needs to do, what pheromones to follow, how to explore for food, how to walk with ant legs? While there is a general component to intelligence, a large part of intelligence is highly specialized.

[Anonymous No.12027973]

Cont. >>12027969

This can also be observed by looking at the current state of AI. While GPT-3 can in fact be trained to play chess ( https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/06/a-very-unlikely-chess-game/ ), it isn't very good. Alphazero on the other hand is very good at chess and other strategy games, but cannot hope to do natural language processing even close to the level of GPT-3 (which is still far below that of humans, for the record)

This intense specialization also brings point 2 into question. Yes, it appears consciousness is unnecessary for many kinds of intelligence, but we cannot rule out a priori that it is unnecessary for human type intelligence, simply because we have no evidence of human type intelligence without consciousness. Maybe it is needed, maybe not. We just don't know.

[Anonymous No.12028171]

>>12025446
I mean, if you view human behaviour as a "black box" that sits between input from senses, and output in the form of behaviour, I guess? Technically?

But not in the Elon Musk Matrix simulation theory sense. If humans are algorithms, they're more like legacy systems of a company that peaked in the mid70s, and now doesn't make enough profit to overhaul the system, so employees must faithfully keep inputting specific data in mysterious, poorly documented pipelines.

[Anonymous No.12028901]

Bump interesting thread