Bob Marks Knocks it Out of the Park on AI

_{Barry Arrington
February 26, 2023

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This is a great discussion about whether AI (1) is currently sentient and (2) can, in principle, be sentient. All three panelists agree that it not currently sentient. It is 2 to 1 on whether it can, in principle, be sentient. As you might expect, how the materialists reach their conclusion follows more from metaphysical commitments than evidence. Max and Melanie (the materialists) see no reason why, in principle, computers cannot in the future be conscious. Why not? they ask, we are all just material stuff. And if you agree with their metaphysical premises, that is an unanswerable question. Max, especially is committed to this view and thinks we should be more humble. He is so blinkered by his commitment to materialism that it does not seem to occur to him that there can be any possible reason to think machines cannot be conscious other than arrogance.

Bob is a dualist and reaches the opposite conclusion, and he gives some excellent reasons to question materialist premises. I commend this excellent discussion to you.

BTW, Bob Marks really knows his stuff, and he presents his arguments in a very winsome fashion. We should all follow his example.

Comments

Uh oh. Looks like Alan Fox has fled the hen house
Nope, door won't open. Site just came up after being inaccessible.Alan Fox_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

Uh oh. Looks like Alan Fox has fled the hen house
Nope, door won't open. Site just came up after being inaccessible.Alan Fox_{March 7, 2023
March
03
Mar
7
07
2023
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox, please explain clearly why/how these differ: Yes, that is the claim you keep repeating, while ignoring the history of prediction and experimental confirmation that demonstrates otherwise. Surely you know that there is a symbolic code running through your computer. Surely you also know that your computer is also just chemistry and physics. This should tell you that the forced dichotomy in your position is false, and that this is being exposed right in front of you. The question is — can you accept that you are wrong.es58_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

Querius
Perhaps to test some of our ideas, it might actually be more productive to post them as questions to receive better informed and less emotional counter arguments.
Yes, exactly. Most of the time, the first response from Chat will be a consensus view - so whatever is the most popular pattern of words and for something like evolution, that will always be the mainstream view. However, with follow-up questions, it uses logic to take apart it's own responses and actually will correct itself. Discussions here that will take weeks going in circles move in a very straight line for ChatGPT and it comes back with some worthwhile outputs.Silver Asiatic_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Uh oh. Looks like Alan Fox has fled the hen house. :D -QQuerius_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Me: If is a match of physical templates why are thousands of different species? Alan Fox: You do realize much cellular chemistry is shared through all species we know of. :) So it's not the shared chemistry that produce diversity, it's something else.whistler_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

.
AF: The only thing I’m denying is that the genetic code is in any way symbolic; it’s chemistry and physics
Yes, that is the claim you keep repeating, while ignoring the history of prediction and experimental confirmation that demonstrates otherwise. Surely you know that there is a symbolic code running through your computer. Surely you also know that your computer is also just chemistry and physics. This should tell you that the forced dichotomy in your position is false, and that this is being exposed right in front of you. The question is -- can you accept that you are wrong.
UB: Is the specification of an amino acid from a codon established by transcribable memory, Alan? AF: No.
Alan, the genetic code is established by the physical properties of the aaRS. This has been known for over 64 years. The physical properties of the aaRS are established by the heritable memory contained in DNA – in the form of nucleic acid sequences that are translated into proteins. “The aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (AARSs) have long fascinated biologists. They are the linchpin of translation, the link between the worlds of protein and nucleic acid”. – Carl Woese “The genetic code is established by the aminoacylation reactions of aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, where amino acids are matched with triplet anticodons imbedded in the cognate tRNAs. – P Schimmel, Protein Science, NIH “…each tRNA is matched with its amino acid long before it reaches the ribosome. The match is made by a collection of remarkable enzymes, the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. These enzymes charge each tRNA with the proper amino acid, thus allowing each tRNA to make the proper translation from the genetic code”. – RCSB Protein Data Bank Alan, the genetic code is established by the properties of the aaRS, and the properties of the aaRS are established from genetic memory. Either the biological community is wrong about that, or you are. Which is it? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Alan, is the association of amino acid-to-anticodon (establishing the genetic code) spatially and temporally independent of the codon-to-anticodon association during protein synthesis?Upright BiPed_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

If is a match of physical templates why are thousands of different species?
You do realize much cellular chemistry is shared through all species we know of. With very few (though interesting and significant) variations, the genetic code is universal to all extant species.Alan Fox_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox @235
The whole subject of cell chemistry is fascinating, and perhaps the role of aminoacyl tRNA synthetases is one of the most interesting. Here (PDF)is a fairly recent review paper on aaRSs which stretches to 39 pages. I’m not suggesting everyone read the whole thing but I will note the words “symbol”, “semiotic”, and “language” do not appear in the text.
How about words like “code”, “translation”, “translational expression”, "rules" and “decoding of genes into proteins”? Does that sound like “it is all just physics and chemistry” to you? From the paper:
Abstract: Fidelity of transfer ribonucleic acid (tRNA) charging by amino acids ensures correct translation of the genetic code into proteins. Key Concepts: •Translational expression of the genetic code refers to aminoacyl-tRNA- and ribosomedependent decoding of genes into proteins, a process highly dependent on fidelity of tRNA aminoacylation by synthetases. •The rules that account for the aminoacylation identity of tRNAs are referred to as the second genetic code.
Origenes_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Relatd writes:
Obfuscation again. It’s not random chemistry.
Random chemistry is an oxymoron. Or, in this case, a lame strawman.Ford Prefect_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Related and Whistler, As I said to Origenes, this is hopeless. You will never get Alan Fox to acknowledge that life is anything but simple molecules without any plan or organization, despite that FAR less complex entities such as computers, jet aircraft, and nuclear reactors do not spontaneously form even after several billions of years! He has no ground for any of these science fantasies except for the gods-of-the-gaps: MIGHTA, MUSTA, and EMERGED. A simple "Okay, show me" blows up the entire narrative. Please don't feed the trolls. -QQuerius_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox The correlation is a match of physical templates.
If is a match of physical templates why are thousands of different species?whistler_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

AF at 235, Obfuscation again. It's not random chemistry. It's guided chemistry.relatd_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bob-marks-knocks-it-out-of-the-park-on-ai/#comment-777094
Checking back in, I see that Alan has moved into the familiar final stage of denial. His arms are folded, and all he can do is repeat his claim. He wants to argue over words. He wants to bathe himself in it. One can wonder if Karl Popper had Alan directly in mind when he wrote about the denialists stratagems for protecting ideological belief. Still, it is an extraordinary sight to see; the open denial of uncontroversial physical sciences like mathematical physics. Really, you can see talking about the fact that a celebrated Nobel Laureate like Sidney Brenner — who was actually on the ground at the time, contributing with Crick to bring about the first documents of how life replicates itself from encoded heritable memory — has emphatically drawn a straight line from Turing’s symbol machine to Von Neumann’s self-replicator to Crick’s biological code, ushering in the current era of modern biology. You can see Alan easily brushing it all aside in order to repeat his claim, as he is doing here. But wow, when it comes to the abject denial of physics and its mathematical confirmations. It’s quite a sight to see.
The only thing I'm denying is that the genetic code is in any way symbolic; it's chemistry and physics, albeit quite complex
Alan claims that protein synthesis has nothing to do with symbolic control; that the specification of an amino acid from a codon during protein synthesis is purely dynamic chemistry. But physics says the specification is rate-independent, discontinuous, and irreversible. The anticodon-to-amino acid association inside the cell (establishing the specification) is temporally and spatially independent of the codon-to-anticodon association (i.e. Alan’s base paring during protein synthesis).
The whole subject of cell chemistry is fascinating, and perhaps the role of aminoacyl tRNA synthetases is one of the most interesting. Here (PDF) is a fairly recent review paper on aaRSs which stretches to 39 pages. I'm not suggesting everyone read the whole thing but I will note the words "symbol", "semiotic", and "language" do not appear in the text. The genetic code is redundant, there are 64 possible combinations of base in a triplet codon but only 20 amino acids coded for, several by 2 some by up to 6, yet there are not 64 aaRSs. So the charging of amino acid to correct tRNA involves recognition of the overall shape of tRNAs with the right codon.
If this was drawn as a diagram of the dissipative process, the former would be on a line perpendicular the latter. All the chemistry in the process is completely understood. It is entirely describable by the mathematics of physics, but that math cannot describe the specification of an amino acid from a codon.
Whether one can describe a specification mathematically, I can't say. Certainly, the stereochemistry of tRNAs and aaRSs and the process of energizing with ATP is well known. I commend the Nick Lane video I mentioned above to give some idea of work in progress.
That specification is established by an inactive transcribable memory (just as predicted by Von Neumann by way of Turing’s symbol machine, and also by Crick, by way of experimentally analyzing the actual process in 1955).
There's no memory in reality, though it's a good analogy of how allele change over time due to selection pressure is "remembered" in the gene pool.
Is the specification of an amino acid from a codon established by transcribable memory, Alan?
No.
What is physically required for transcribable memory?
Depends what you mean by transcribable memory.Alan Fox_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Origenes @233, This is hopeless. Alan Fox's unsupported materialist assertions can be exposed by simple substitution to produce a reductio ad absurdum:
The correlation is a match of physical templates. There really is no symbolism involved in the operation of the processes within a computer's CPU, RAM, BIOS, and OS. This is all physics and chemistry and well-studied.
-QQuerius_{March 6, 2023
March
03
Mar
6
06
2023
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply