kerravon wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 1:57 amiansjack wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 11:48 pm
kerravon wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 8:04 pm
That is from introspection. You can try that yourself. Think of everything you do. Which specific bit of what you do can not be replicated in silicon with a sufficiently sophisticated algorithm?
Write a musical suite as beautiful as The Goldberg Variations.
Chess advocates were adamant that computers would never be able to beat a grandmaster too. And for decades they were right. And then suddenly someone got the algorithm right. Actually, before the killer algorithm, brute force hardware did the trick with Deep Blue.
Chess is a deterministic game. As you say, it can be solved by brute force (given unlimited resources). Music, poetry, literature are not deterministic. There are no easy rules to allow us to produce and judge these things. According to your argument I should be able to load my brain with the software that would allow me to produce the equal of Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands - I don't believe that is true; I believe there is a spark of genius that goes beyond mere learning or programming.
You can’t just load a new operating system into a brain and make it a Bach
I'm not saying you can load it into a brain. I'm saying you can load it onto silicon - at least in principle.
Ah - so now you accept that the brain is not just the same as silicon. That's progress of a sort.
I don't know how to write music, and as far as I can see, everything I am doing is purely computational. There's nothing at all magic in what I do.
You can't judge all humanity by a single example. It's not all about you and your personal limitations.
My main point was about humanity as a whole. Humanity as a whole isn't writing music.
An awful lot of them are. And an awful lot of people write poems, songs, literature or produce painting, sculpture, etc. There's more to humanity than computation.
They're all just glorified chimpanzees running predictable scripts - as I am myself.
I'm prepared to accept that you are just a glorified chimpanzee, but you haven't justified that assertion about anyone else. Why should I listen to the glorified chimpanzee rather than those thinkers who are more than that? For example, what gives you the right to think that you can solve the problems of Iraq rather than those who act as more than just computers?