If X and Y appear dissimilar, the burden of proof is on he who would argue they are similar.
If one contends a brain and a computer and the functions of each appear similar, then one is being disingenuous.
You can't prove a negative in this sense. In general, we know things are possible... but we never know if things are impossible.
And, don't call me surely.
Sure you can't prove that silicon devices behave like turing machines, or even that they really exist, but for the sake of this discussion, what does that matter?
What would you consider to be an example of that? And how does that square with the Problem of Induction which is the hole in our entire system of empirical knowledge generation?
If I change the underlying axioms and rules, I could certainly prove that 2+2=5, just as I can prove that The sum of a triangles interior angles exceed 180 degrees, or that two identical number squared can equal -1. (Redefining what a straight line means for the former, and inventing an imaginary number system for the latter.)
Proving what can and cannot follow given a set of rules, however, is not what philosophers mean when they speak or impossibility in the real world.
Yes to apply that to the real world, we have to use some assumptions like, the universe isnt a giant trick, the sun will rise tomorrow, we dont live in the matrix, etc. However given the context of this discussion those are fairly reasonable assumptions.
Perhaps there could be general AI... I'm not saying it can't be done. I would point out, though, that IF it is to be done, it certainly won't be by copying a brain. Nobody even knows the hell the brain works...
There is no proof, or we would not be having this discussion over and over again.
I contend the brain is by definition a duck.
It's easy to redefine words.
A brain is an organ within another known organism in a differing position in the tree of life with different characteristics.
A computer is a device which takes in input via some means and uses input to transform elements that together represent its internal state based on input and prior internal state resulting in output that is the result of both internal state and input arranged in a fashion such that an actor with sufficient knowledge of functioning can manipulate input in order to achieve desired output.
A programmer is such an actor.
In such a context it appears that a brain is merely programmer and computer and AI is merely the achievement of a sufficiently complex and capable system as to represent the same thing in silicon or whatever medium you prefer.
Arguing that such is impossible seems to be merely a failure of imagination.
You imagine a 'thinking' machine all you want. Doesn't change to reality of the situation that no digital device comes close to thinking.
Some find this frustrating. So, they reduce the idea of a brain to a digital computer.
Ita a confusion of the Model with that being Modelled. A photo of you, is a representation -- or model -- of you. But, it would be silly to become so enamourwd with the photo that you begin to think YOU are a representation of the photograph.
Doesn't it though. Someone from the 1800s would probably absolutely think it does. We have computers that can identify what is in a photo, computers that can do complex math problems (pretty sure historically, the ability to do logic was considered first and foremost what made humans intelligent and not simple "animals", its only recently with the rise of computers this has taken a back seat), computers that can translate between languages, etc. That's not the same as being human, there is no sense of self or independence of action (nor are we anywhere close to having that) but we've made amazing, almost unconcievable strives, in only 100 years. So i think its unfair to say computers dont think at all.
Convolutional networks and neural nets in general are cool, but hardly magical. It’s just glorified curve-fitting. A person from the 1800’s would not be all that impressed with the idea. (What’s impressive is the bread-and-butter of it... namely, the technology that enables the millions of simple calculations per millisecond.)
Indeed, the term was originally used about people - our electronic computers today have the name because they were taking over functions carried out by human brains.
Programmers effectively emulate a compiler in their minds when they are programming. I don't see why it's so hard to accept that the brain has many "computer" capabilities, even if it's implemented with different materials.
I do not accept that there is a difference between computation and thought without some meaningful definition of thought.
If I know everything about the nature of X, yet I know very little about the nature of Y, it would be illogical to say "I will assume Y is like X until proven otherwise."
It is worse to imagine that there is a physical process that exists wholly in the physical world that happens in the world within reasonable parameters cannot possibly be engineered to happen in a controlled fashion.
This is a proof that would require a major shift in physics and math and yet we are expected to accept it purely based on intuition without even a compelling theory of how it does work.
The difference, though, is that the Wright Brothers were never foolish enough to arrogantly say a bird is actually a type of airplane...
It reduces to the following: Given X, if I could create a Y such that Y=X, then X would equal Y!
That adds nothing.
It isn't a given that it is even possible to 'copy' a brain. Why would one think it is? Does not quantum mechanics preclude the possibility of copying something perfectly at the atomic scale? Indeed, even if you could perfectly copy the 'material' aspect, you will still need to copy the configuration of electrical charges that existed at the moment of copying. This too is, from what I gather from QM, inherently impossible.
Does this preclude general AI? No. But it does demonstrate the absurdity of arguments that begin, "if I could copy the brain atom by atom, then..." as such a thing is impossible.