Just to be clear, there isn’t strong direct evidence of that, is there?
What does ‘direct’ mean? Does it mean “has already been done”? If so then no. The evidence is more of the kind “either it is possible or everything we know about reductionism, physics and human biology is bullshit”.
“either it is possible or everything we know about reductionism, physics and human biology is bullshit”
That seems too strong. If intelligence really did turn out to rely on quantum computing or some other non turing computation, that would mean you couldn’t program intelligence on a computer in a remotely efficient way. Though presumably you could program it on a quantum computer (or whatever the special feature of physics is that lets you do this fancy computer). Of course this doesn’t seem too likely given what we know about neurons.
Of course this doesn’t seem too likely given what we know about neurons.
Yes, for a suitable instantiation of “not too likely” this is a rough translation of what I meant by “either it is possible or everything we know about reductionism, physics and human biology is bullshit”.
What does ‘direct’ mean? Does it mean “has already been done”? If so then no. The evidence is more of the kind “either it is possible or everything we know about reductionism, physics and human biology is bullshit”.
That seems too strong. If intelligence really did turn out to rely on quantum computing or some other non turing computation, that would mean you couldn’t program intelligence on a computer in a remotely efficient way. Though presumably you could program it on a quantum computer (or whatever the special feature of physics is that lets you do this fancy computer). Of course this doesn’t seem too likely given what we know about neurons.
Yes, for a suitable instantiation of “not too likely” this is a rough translation of what I meant by “either it is possible or everything we know about reductionism, physics and human biology is bullshit”.
We agree then.