undefined | Better HN

0 pointstux19681mo ago0 comments

You're ignoring the point. The individual atoms of YOUR body do not learn. They do not respond to experience. You categorically stated that any system built on such components can not demonstrate intelligence. You need to think long and hard before posting this argument again.

Once you admit that higher level structures can be intelligent, even though they're built on non-dynamic, non-adaptive technology -- then there's as much reason to think that software running on silicon can do it too. Just like the higher level chemistry, nuclear physics, and any other "biological software" can do on top of the non-dynamic, non-learning, atoms of your body.

0 comments

rolph1mo ago

>>The individual atoms of YOUR body do not learn. They do not respond to experience<<

you are quite wrong on that. that is where you are failing to understand, you cant get past that idea.

there is also a large difference in scale. your silicon is going to need assembly/organization on the scale of individual molecules, and there will be self assembly required as that level of organization is constantly changing.

the barrier is mechanical scale construction, as the basic unit of function,that is why silicon and code cant adapt, cant exploit hysterisis, cant alter its own structure and function at an existentially fundamental level.

you are holding the wrong end of the stick. biology is not magic, it is a product of reality.

tux1968OP1mo ago

No, you're failing to acknowledge that your own assertion that intelligence can't be based on a non-dynamic, non-learning technology is just wrong. And not only wrong, proof to the contrary, is demonstrated by your very own existence. If you accept that you are at the very base of your tech stack, just atoms, then you simply must acknowledge that intelligence can be built on top of a non-learning, non-dynamic base technology.

All the rest is just hand waiving that it's "different". You're either atoms, or you're somehow atoms + extra magic. I'm assuming you're not going to claim that you're extra magic, in which case, your assertions are just demonstrably false, and predicated on unjustified claims about the nature of biology.

rolph1mo ago

so you are a bot! i thought so, not bad, your getting better at acting human!

atoms are not the base of stack, you need to look at virtual annihilation, and decoherence. to get close to base. there is no magic, biology just goes to the base of the stack.

you cant access that base, with such coarse mechanisms as deposited silicon. thats because it never changes, it fails at times and starts over.

biology is constantly changing, its tied to the base of existence itself. it fails, and varies until failure is an infeasible state.

Quantum "computers" are something close to where you need to be, and a self assembling, self replenishing, persistant ^patterning^ constraint is going to be of much greater utility than a silicon abacus.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointstux19681mo ago0 comments

0 comments

rolph1mo ago

>>The individual atoms of YOUR body do not learn. They do not respond to experience<<

you are quite wrong on that. that is where you are failing to understand, you cant get past that idea.

you are holding the wrong end of the stick. biology is not magic, it is a product of reality.

tux1968OP1mo ago

rolph1mo ago

so you are a bot! i thought so, not bad, your getting better at acting human!

atoms are not the base of stack, you need to look at virtual annihilation, and decoherence. to get close to base. there is no magic, biology just goes to the base of the stack.

you cant access that base, with such coarse mechanisms as deposited silicon. thats because it never changes, it fails at times and starts over.

biology is constantly changing, its tied to the base of existence itself. it fails, and varies until failure is an infeasible state.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse