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Computers have not superseded humans in mathematical research.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.

>>Jeff_B+oB1
What if the secret sauce that makes intelligence, the kind that invents AI, is consciousness? I, at least, certainly do a lot of conscious thinking when I solve problems, as opposed to unconscious thinking :)

>>yters+qC1
"I, at least, certainly do a lot of conscious thinking when I solve problems"

That jumps out at me, because I do a lot of "unconscious thinking" to solve problems and I feel like I've read where other people describe similar experiences.

Besides the cliche of solving problems in your sleep, I sometimes have an experience where consciously focusing on solving a problem leads to a blind alley, and distracting my conscious mind with something else somehow lets a background task run to "defrag" or something. But on the other hand there is "bad" distraction too - I'm not sure offhand what the difference is.

It's possible that I'm far from typical, but I also suspect people of different types and intellects might process things in very different ways too.

But to me, I definitely have a strong sense much of the time that my conscious mind engages in the receipt of information about something complex and then the actual analysis is happening somewhere invisible to me in my brain. I'm frequently conscious that I'm figuring something out and yet unaware of the process.

It particularly seems weird to me that other people often seem to be convinced they are conscious of their thought processes, because surely the type of person who is not a knowledge worker isn't? I'm not sure if my way of thinking is the "smart way", the "dumb way", or just weird, but I'm sure that there is significant diversity among people in general.

Sometimes I wonder if the model of AI is the typical mind of a very small subset of humanity that's unlike the rest, kind of like the way psychological experiments have been biased towards college students since that's who they could easily get.