zlacker

>>mdszy+(OP)
Why is there never any fundamental research whether human intelligence is even computable? All these huge, expensive projects based on an untested premise.

>>yters+GI
But there is. We have fundamental research into whether physics is computable. We also have fundamental research on the physical structure of human consciousness/intelligence. So first we need to discover the physical model of human intelligence, and then we can determine its computability.

>>random+YM
Intelligence is a human property, yes, but also a Platonic one. We didn't need to understand how humans process math in order to get computers to do it.

>>Jeff_B+yR
As stated in my other reply: "Human consciousness extends far beyond our current understanding. I am referring to the full extent of the capabilities of the human mind, not some isolated aspects of it."

Computers have not superseded humans in mathematical research. That is way beyond anything that we can program into a computer. Computers are better at computation, which is not the same thing.

>>random+IX
By "math" I mean proving theorems, not doing arithmetic. Yes, we're better at finding useful theorems, but computers can do it.

More generally, the fact that currently humans are the only entity observed doing X does not mean you need to understand humans to understand X.

>>Jeff_B+hs1
I wrote "computation", not "arithmetic". Human intelligence goes beyond computation / mathematical logic, and you seem to ignore all of that. We haven't got a clue how consciousness works. It's a total mystery.

>>random+iv1
The aim of AI is intelligence, not human intelligence. It's not to emulate a process; it's to solve problems.

If we do build AI, maybe we'll never know if it's conscious. You can't know whether any other human is conscious, either. But you can know whether they make you laugh, or cry, or learn, or love. The knowable things are good enough.