
Intelligent Machinery (1948) [pdf] - hardmaru
https://weightagnostic.github.io/papers/turing1948.pdf
======
hardmaru
Hi,

In addition to the link posted by dang about the previous discussion, here are
some other articles I found interesting on Alan Turing's "Type-B Unorganised
Machines"

Evolved Turing neural networks

[http://compucology.net/evolved](http://compucology.net/evolved)

Turing's Neural Networks of 1948

[http://www.alanturing.net/turing_archive/pages/Reference%20A...](http://www.alanturing.net/turing_archive/pages/Reference%20Articles/connectionism/Turing's%20neural%20networks.html)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unorganized_machine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unorganized_machine)

------
kouh
A definite classic. What's unique about human intelligence? There doesn't seem
to be anything in our carbon based systems that can't be theoretically
replicated on silicon. Turing may not have been religious, but the amazement I
think he felt about human intelligence was close to religious awe.

~~~
Barrin92
>What's unique about human intelligence? There doesn't seem to be anything in
our carbon based systems that can't be theoretically replicated on silicon.

Organical systems convey much more, and predominantly analog signals, that
don't have any sort of equivalent silicon basis. _Wetware, a computer in every
living cell_ by Dennis Bray goes into detail in how multidemnsional and
complex the information processing in even individual cells is, down to single
celled organisms executing complex behaviour.

You don't need to be religious to be sceptical and to see the difference
between organic and non-organic information processing. In computer science
circles there tends to be an overemphasis of neural connections over the
actual matter and structure of neural cells.

~~~
marcosdumay
If you are claiming that our current computers are way too slow/small to
replicate our brains, well, I don't think anybody disagrees.

But the GP is saying that it's possible to create some computer that
replicates it (even if we can't do it now). I don't see anything disagreeing
with it in your post.

~~~
whymauri
I'm sorry, but they kinda said nothing about speed or size.

>predominantly analog signals, that don't have any sort of equivalent silicon
basis.

They said the computing units we use on silicon are, at a fundamental level,
completely different. And I'm inclined to believe them. Yes, it is computable
to simulate the sort of computational processes they allude to. And yes, it
would be very slow to do that. But I'm just noting that that was not their
point.

To your point, some people subscribe to a theory that the distributed nature
and synchronicity of neural mechanisms makes then similar to n-body problems
(then you're modeling these mechanics as ODEs). To that end, I don't think any
amount of compute will solve them exactly at that level of granularity. So
yeah, 'theoretically' replicable but many things are theoretically possible,
and I don't think they'll be practically useful soon (like Dyson Spheres for
an extreme example).

That being said, I don't think approximation is a bad approach at all given we
are aware of the fact that we're approximating. Directly replicating... while
philosophically interesting, is just not useful.

~~~
Retric
You can easily build analog circuits. It’s actually how most early computers
where designed.

Further, the ability to withstand minor effects like the pressure changes from
each heartbeat or the shock from individual steps represent a robust system.
Worse the brain needs redundancy to deal with things like cell deaths.

We can argue that simulating you needs quantum level precision, but we can’t
tell if someone is replaced with a fairly close copy because that’s literally
happening all the time.

~~~
whymauri
I'm sorry, did anyone mention quantum effects..?

~~~
Retric
I am not sure what else you mean by ‘at a fundamental level’.

Get enough neurotransmitters of the right type at the receptors of each neuron
and it fires. At the level of chemistry that’s very much computable. It’s only
by digging one step below that and saying you need to simulate quantum effects
for some reason that doing so in a chip becomes an issue.

------
dang
Related from 2011:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3076721](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3076721)

