Arguing that consciousness and the brain is different from deterministic algorithms, or neural networks is perfectly valid. It doesn't show lack of understanding of AI. Just that the debater is not an adherer of strong AI functionalism.
Using Gödel's incompleteness theorems one can argue that no set of algorithms is capable of perfectly modeling human consciousness. A logically correct algorithm can not give faulty output, yet internally conclude that output to be correct. We do not make the same mental steps as a set of algorythms: I can't say this post is correct with a 97.77% accuracy. In fact I wonder if you will respect me more or less after this reply, if you'll believe I lack understanding of machine learning... not if I passed the Turing test for intelligence or not. Calculation != Intelligence.
Like the robot in the Chinese room is still a puppet, that doesn't really understand Chinese. Attaching a radar to a flying drone doesn't make it feel or act like a bat.
How is Godel's incompleteness theorems an issue here? AI does not have to model the human brain by simulating it. And it need not be rigorously/axiomatically defined as a decidable formal system nor does it need the ability to prove its own consistency. Nor does it need to be consistent, making the GITs inapplicable. Heck the AI could use paraconsistent logical reasoning or couple bayesian inference with a suitable multi-valued logic as its base.
I was directly responding to this portion of the parents posts:
Small bits of it can be algorithmically simulated. Large processes can be algorithmically simulated. But to call the algorithm "intelligence" is sympathetic magic.
Algorithms work in a different way; they break in a different way; they are hard-coded so don't change. They are a simulation.
By the structuring of his description, it is apparent that he is reasoning from an application or "computer" if you will, developers perspective. My point was that it is flawed to look at AI software as rigid structures, applying traditional development patterns is flawed and does not reflect the realities of AI development. Put simply the description of AI as hard-coded paths and developer generated (implied) algorithms is in no way factual.
I agree with you on that. AI has advanced beyond rigid structures and scripts. Using a system that operates with fuzzy logic or building a neural network and teaching it, 'till you the programmer can't make heads or tails of its computations and derivations is a wonderful thing indeed.
As an aside: like Penrose chose quantum physics (a mysterious thing) to explain consciousness (another mysterious thing), and therefor didn't succeed to convince others, so we should guard against using a fuzzy, complex, black-box, dynamic system (a mysterious thing) to explain (or fully model) consciousness and human intelligence.
We just replaced the wonder with another wonder :)
Using Gödel's incompleteness theorems one can argue that no set of algorithms is capable of perfectly modeling human consciousness. A logically correct algorithm can not give faulty output, yet internally conclude that output to be correct. We do not make the same mental steps as a set of algorythms: I can't say this post is correct with a 97.77% accuracy. In fact I wonder if you will respect me more or less after this reply, if you'll believe I lack understanding of machine learning... not if I passed the Turing test for intelligence or not. Calculation != Intelligence.
Like the robot in the Chinese room is still a puppet, that doesn't really understand Chinese. Attaching a radar to a flying drone doesn't make it feel or act like a bat.
Much of AI is still Advanced Informatics.