Re:Did Turing prove the undecidability of the halting problem?
by chuckadams on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @10:16AM
(#40856937)
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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Did Turing prove the undecidability of the halting problem?
by dcow on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @10:37AM
(#40857131)
The universe is a quantum computer that computes itself, so it’s certainly possible.
Re:Did Turing prove the undecidability of the halting problem?
by chimprich on Tuesday July 02, 2024 @01:15PM
(#40858618)
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.
Re:Did Turing prove the undecidability of the halting problem?
by darby_nine on Wednesday July 03, 2024 @01:44PM
(#40868278)
> 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.