Thought Provoker
Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007
|
I have been looking into Siegelmann's published papers.
Thank you BWE, they are very interesting.
I was having trouble finding a specific disagreement between Siegelmann and Penrose but I finally found this...
| Quote | | Our model may also be thought of as a possible answer to Penrose’s recent claim Penrose (1989) that the standard model of computing is not appropriate for modeling true biological intelligence. Penrose argues that physical processes, evolving at a quantum level, may result in computations which cannot be incorporated in Church’s Thesis. The analog neural network does allow for non-Turing power while keeping track of computational constraints, and thus embeds a possible answer to Penrose’s challenge within the framework of classical computer science. |
link
It seems Siegelmann is relying on the analog part of "analog neural network" to get to her AI nirvana. This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me because, as an Electrical Engineer, I work with analog-to-digital conversion with precisions approaching electron charge. Penrose is a mathematician. Reducing digital precision by orders of magnitude is still digital precision. Penrose can be wrong, but I don’t see how analog verses digital changes anything in our quantum-based reality.
Let me cut to what I see as fundamental differences. I suspect most of you would agree it is possible life evolved to use quantum effects but you may argue it is just not required and, therefore, can be simulated "...within the framework of classical computer science."
This gets into the discussion about "sources of true randomness" postulated by sledgehammer. If quantum effects is the fundamental source for all true randomness then it becomes a metaphysical free-for-all.
Is it truly random?
Is it orchestrated quantum effects in spacetime?
Is it God working in "mysterious ways"?
|
