I agree that nothing in current "AI" technology has a chance of leading to anything approaching true intelligence or agency.
But it's a legitimate question whether we could (eventually) build a system in which all aspects of a man-made system, from virtual DNA on up, mimic in meaningful ways the complex functions of physical biological systems. And if the answer is yes, could we then create something that has virtual agency? (I'll leave aside the question of whether or not we *should*, since even if it's clear we shouldn't, some rationalizing person somewhere will attempt it if the technology becomes available).
I think the theoretical answer is probably yes. But I think most people underestimate the amount of resources (memory, processing power, etc.) required for such virtual biology by many orders of magnitude. Enough orders of magnitude, in fact, that even if Moore's Law continues unabated forever (which is doubtful) the chance of us achieving anything like this within several centuries seems small.
One of the reasons for this is that, contrary to what many digital bloviators would have you believe, neither our brains nor any other part of us are digital. And no part of us would lend itself well to digitization without significant loss of fidelity (which in this case would mean intelligence). IOW, we are analog through and through, and as any audiophile can tell you, analog inherently captures volumes more data than digital. So, the amount of information packed into a single cell of our brains and bodies is staggering, even by modern megadata standards.
Your comment is thoughtful, and raises two very interesting questions:
1. If we could build an automaton that “mapped” biological systems in “meaningful” ways, from virtual DNA on up, would the automaton have “virtual agency”?
Theoretically, I tend to think so as well. As long as it were based on a “cellular” design, what would be the difference? On the other hand - and as you point out, such a system could not be binary in nature, and thus would not be very different from a human. It would have to build its own digital systems to do what “AI” does now!.
The digital/analog dimension is also very relevant here, as you point out. The range of values an analog signal can take on are infinite. The only limitation is our ability to measure them. Even where pyramidal neurons in the neocortex have a “digital” aspect” - action potential vs no action potential at any given instant - the information is carried in the *rate of action potentials, which is, again, analog. No life form ever studied is in any meaningful way “digital” in structure or function.
Thus, “virtual agency” is, itself, likely to require an analog design. Is that still “virtual?” Not really.
2. The second question asked of me in lectures is “if you were able to build such an automaton, would it have consciousness?” I have no idea, but some very studied scientists, like Christof Koch (see his book “The Feeling of Life Itself: Why Consciousness is Widespread but Cannot be Computed (MIT Press), and Giulio Tonini say “no, impossible!” and make a a rational argument to that effect based on so-called “Integrated Information Theory”. They claim it is not only testable, but there is experimental supporting evidence for it (see:
Finally, Nick Lane’s research makes a very strong case that all life arose from cell membranes, and life is simply impossible without them. And they, too, are analog.
I agree that nothing in current "AI" technology has a chance of leading to anything approaching true intelligence or agency.
But it's a legitimate question whether we could (eventually) build a system in which all aspects of a man-made system, from virtual DNA on up, mimic in meaningful ways the complex functions of physical biological systems. And if the answer is yes, could we then create something that has virtual agency? (I'll leave aside the question of whether or not we *should*, since even if it's clear we shouldn't, some rationalizing person somewhere will attempt it if the technology becomes available).
I think the theoretical answer is probably yes. But I think most people underestimate the amount of resources (memory, processing power, etc.) required for such virtual biology by many orders of magnitude. Enough orders of magnitude, in fact, that even if Moore's Law continues unabated forever (which is doubtful) the chance of us achieving anything like this within several centuries seems small.
One of the reasons for this is that, contrary to what many digital bloviators would have you believe, neither our brains nor any other part of us are digital. And no part of us would lend itself well to digitization without significant loss of fidelity (which in this case would mean intelligence). IOW, we are analog through and through, and as any audiophile can tell you, analog inherently captures volumes more data than digital. So, the amount of information packed into a single cell of our brains and bodies is staggering, even by modern megadata standards.
Chief Bunkum -
Your comment is thoughtful, and raises two very interesting questions:
1. If we could build an automaton that “mapped” biological systems in “meaningful” ways, from virtual DNA on up, would the automaton have “virtual agency”?
Theoretically, I tend to think so as well. As long as it were based on a “cellular” design, what would be the difference? On the other hand - and as you point out, such a system could not be binary in nature, and thus would not be very different from a human. It would have to build its own digital systems to do what “AI” does now!.
The digital/analog dimension is also very relevant here, as you point out. The range of values an analog signal can take on are infinite. The only limitation is our ability to measure them. Even where pyramidal neurons in the neocortex have a “digital” aspect” - action potential vs no action potential at any given instant - the information is carried in the *rate of action potentials, which is, again, analog. No life form ever studied is in any meaningful way “digital” in structure or function.
Thus, “virtual agency” is, itself, likely to require an analog design. Is that still “virtual?” Not really.
2. The second question asked of me in lectures is “if you were able to build such an automaton, would it have consciousness?” I have no idea, but some very studied scientists, like Christof Koch (see his book “The Feeling of Life Itself: Why Consciousness is Widespread but Cannot be Computed (MIT Press), and Giulio Tonini say “no, impossible!” and make a a rational argument to that effect based on so-called “Integrated Information Theory”. They claim it is not only testable, but there is experimental supporting evidence for it (see:
https://iep.utm.edu/integrated-information-theory-of-consciousness/#:~:text=IIT%27s%20methodology%20involves%20characterizing%20the,effect%20power%20upon%20one%20another.).
Finally, Nick Lane’s research makes a very strong case that all life arose from cell membranes, and life is simply impossible without them. And they, too, are analog.
Bill