• Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    No mention of the truly magical rocks that have a measurable aura and mostly won’t try to kill you, magnets?

        • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          No, a computer is just boolean logic. I’m not being reductive, that’s literally all you need.

          When people say that thinking is just complicated enough computation, that’s an assumption. A particularly convenient assumption, given all the computers we have lying about.

          • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            if we ever emulated the complex interplay of chemicals and electricity in our brains using a computer’s boolean logic, wouldn’t that be thinking?

            • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              A brain is several billion living nerve cells all doing their thing, acting and reacting to one another, concurrently. A computer is only ever doing one task at a time, but at a fast enough pace as to give the illusion of multi-tasking.

              Emulating a whole brain (everything, not just simplified neural networks, but the actual nerve cells themselves) is currently far beyond what computers are capable of. More then that, not every natural phenomenon can be described algorithmically! It’s entirely possible that consciousness is non-computable.

              • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                8 days ago

                i know we don’t have that technology right now. i see it as very plausible in the future.

                It’s entirely possible that consciousness is non-computable.

                thats a hell of an assumption, is thinking the same as consciousness? how would consciousness be non-computable, if our brains are composed of discrete computation units (the neurons)? granted they are very different from computers, but i can see it being emulatable with enough processing power to account for all the variables.

                we don’t know for a fact only fleshy brains composed of neurons are somehow capable of experiencing it. do we know what consciousness even is?

                is that even how we define “thinking” too? why would a theoretical future ai that could theoretically have a logic process like ours not be considered “thinking”?

                • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 days ago

                  Yes, it’s an assumption to say consciousness is non-computable. But it’s also an assumption to say it is computable. Not really a phenomenon we understand.

                  I agree that fleshy brains are probably not the only things capable of producing consciousness. I think it’s actually fairly likely that a machine could be made that reproduces it, I’m just… really skeptical that it’s gonna look anything like a Turing machine. It would certainly be convenient if it did.

                  As to brains being made of discrete units… there’s some evidence to suggest it might not be. When you put a person (or any living thing) under general anesthetics, the thing the anesthetics target is microtubules within cells. And microtubules themselves have quantum mechanical properties. They’ve been shown to er, “do”, super-luminescence in lab experiments (I don’t understand quantum).

                  Admittedly, that’s a lot of correlation and almost no direct example of causation. But it does suggest there’s… something… there that needs more examination and research.

  • hypeerror@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 days ago

    Rocks produce strong fire auras in water. Congrats on the nuclear reactor. You’re quite the “alchemist”

    • Comment105@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 days ago

      I thought they meant the ones that explode or start burning in contact with water. Like Sodium.