Against AI - My Idea of a Joke (Part 2)

iii. Concerning Algorithms:
Machine Intelligence has been a popular topic for decades. The basic notion being that a large algorithm could duplicate the human thought process. In the strong artificial intelligence interpretation, a living mind is regarded simply a matter of complicated computer code. The organic basis of the brain is not even considered, which may be its greatest flaw. Human thought processes may be argued to be more complex, by almost never conforming to the end result of deterministic logical mathematical sequences, and rooted in the physical world via the brain. A human mind cannot download or be transferred. Statistical methods do not apply to any specific individual character trait. Demographic generalities are based upon group identification. The herd mentality is different from individual mentality. The neural network of the human brain continually changes by growing and eliminating connections, which is not the same as either a computer simulation or the herd. The map is not the territory. A broad framework is outlined during fetal development and changes over time. We learn through trial and error. The physical shifting of the brain, called plasticidy, may be the basis for long term memory and more. A machine has no real memory, being far more perfectly stored yet completely erasable on command. An algorithm cannot produce irrational numbers computed to the infinite decimal point. A predetermined cut off point must be established, else the processor could not advance its code. A rational number may be expressed in terms of the ratio n/m. An irrational number, such as pi, may not be expressed such, except trivially. Furthermore, an algorithm may not comprehend an imaginary number, denoted by ia, where i is the square root of -1 and a is any real number, which has no determinate value. An imaginary number may be added to any real number b to create ai + b, which is a called a complex number. Graphically a complex number may be plotted on an x-y grid, thus side-stepping the concept. The indeterminate I has many uses in the form, including simplifying trigonometric and probability functions. A complex variable may represent any number (and its mirror image) in a complete circle around the x-y axis, which may be plotted in a gausian distribution[7] given a mean value. In quantum mechanics complex variables are used to describe particle behavior over all space. A wave function may combine with others to form a different wave function, which is allowed by the principle of superposition. The human mind is capable of comprehending the concept of complex values, but our algorithmic tools may only utilize its tricks. We are limited by our five senses and brilliant extensions like mathematics. An algorithm may only calculate approximations. Our minds may leap further.
This next step involves a hypothesis involving irrational numbers and the human mind. During the early to mid-20th century, the psychologist Carl Jung and others developed a theory of symbolic dream interpretation which may be appreciated on style alone.[8] If a subject dreams of a circle, he is experiencing a symbol of wholeness.[9] Hence, a dreaming mind must be utilizing the full value of pi, or else the circle would not be whole. Yet, this cannot be. An approximation would not satisfy this requirement for a completely rational mind. It would drive a dreaming machine insane. In a complex representation, instinct[10] may be regarded as the irrational numeric, while creativity follows the complex step beyond.[11] The equation a + ib could (simplistically) represent the hemispheres of the brain -- its duality. In these terms, human behavior is a unique incomputable algorithm, therefore not reproducible with computer code. The following logical proof by contradiction tautology illustrates the joke:
P <=> [~P => (Q ^ ~Q)] (1)
where assuming the human mind is computable (~P) leads to it consisting of both an algorithm (Q) (for certain functions) and a not-algorithm (~Q) for others, like dreaming. Hence, the human mind is not-computable (P).
Although a machine could prove an expert mimic, it will eventually fail the Turing test.[12] It will not die. An appropriate test concerning consciousness might entail the creative, rather than the analytical or superficial. The sublime is most often subordinate to the mundane, which more often puts food on the table. The creative is uncertain, but often essential for change. Change is life. The stagnant is either dead or never living in the first place. Sentience requires life. The computer may be an expert mimic, but not move beyond. A possibly unexplored science may hold the answers, but algorithms are a dead-end[13]. Randomly computed chance is pre-determinism. The computer is a tool, and limited by the cleverness of its makers like any other. It cannot think, being constrained to a sequence of 0s and 1s. The machine cannot dream, therefore can not be alive. It cannot be driven insane.

[7] A bell-curve...

[8] See Jung et al, 1964.

[9] Of course, since pi never ends, the perfect circle does not exist, therefore any sense of wholeness will never be complete.

[10] These terms are attributable to a limitation in another language beside mathematics.

[11] Or alternatively, the subjective and objective components of consciousness, or an event...

[12] See Penrose, 1989, pp. 30 - 71. A machine indistinguishable from human is essentially human, which has its own debatable merits. An observer, unable to differentiate between the two, would define whether a machine has the ability to think. The flaw lies in subjectiveness. An idiot (in the Dostoyevskian sense) would make the entire point moot. Does the machine have to mirror its makers?

[13] The contrary view may be a sign of decadence in the sciences.