Skip to content

Comment on Did Turing prove the undecidability of the halting problem?parent

Comments

Penrose's entire thesis seems to boil down that AGI is impossible because brains use Quantum Oogly-Boogly and that since Quantum Oogly-Boogly isn't computable, no computer can do it. The Emperor's New Mind is a tour de force of a book, but its central premise feels thoroughly unconvincing, or at least poorly communicated.

It's been a long time since I've read TENM but I don't think Penrose argued that AGI was impossible, just that consciousness was not computable by a Turing machine. Presumably you could create AGI by utilising these quantum effects if it turns out that Penrose is correct and they do something.

I wouldn't particularly bet on Penrose being correct but until someone figures out how consciousness actually works or proves that it's somehow a big self-convincing illusion I don't think we can completely discount the idea that there's some kind of physics involved.

I wouldn't particularly bet on Penrose being correct but until someone figures out how consciousness actually works or proves that it's somehow a big self-convincing illusion I don't think we can completely discount the idea that there's some kind of physics involved.

Despite my flippant rejection of Penrose I very much agree. I just thought the computational approach was misguided and his colleagues did him dirty.

The universe is a quantum computer that computes itself, so it’s certainly possible.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.