2 nanometers is like 8 or 9 silicon atoms side to side. There is an obvious limit to this. What happens then?
it's not the channel size, it's the gate size which is still about 10-20 nm, they are they bottleneck not the 2nm channels
>>16896970>The term "2 nanometer", or alternatively "20 angstrom" (a term used by Intel), has no relation to any actual physical feature (such as gate length, metal pitch or gate pitch) of the transistors. >According to the projections contained in the 2021 update of the International Roadmap for Devices and Systems published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a "2.1 nm node range label" is expected to have a contacted gate pitch of 45 nanometers and a tightest metal pitch of 20 nanometers.[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_nm_process
>>16896974Then why is it called 2nm then? Is there a scientific reason?
>>16896975MarketingIt's not even consistent across manufacturers for the same process
>>16896975Historical/marketing reasons.The 32nm process referred to half the distance between identical features on the chip. This wasn't any sort of universal standard, though, and once the public came to recognize "smaller nm number = better chip," the number just gets smaller with every successive generation of chip technology without regard to any physical feature of said chip technology.
>>16896978goddamn I love America
>>16896970Chip size decreases while wafer size increases. At my job, we still produce 8" wafers, while at Intel they produce 12" wafers. But engineers and scientists keep finding ways to increase wafer size while decreasing circuit size. There's an obvious limit to that where the space between components becomes so small that it causes noise and potential short circuiting. There's also the limits of human protection. We cover ourselves in cleanroom suits and masjs, but that doesn't protect against everything.
>>16896983*masksSorry, I've had a few beers.
>>16896981>AmericaEveryone's doing it.
pack them in 3D betterbut when this limitation is also reached, then we either finally figure out photonics-based computing or quantum computing
How is it ensured that the neighboring atoms don't interact with each other and mess up the bits since they're so close together?
>>16896970It gets too hot. But it's not really 2nm hehe, as anon said it's just a meme. My prediction is that there'll be a partial societal collapse and chips will be slower in the future. And that's a good thing because we will also stop using bloatware. The future is bright!
>>16896970Once capabilities of silicon are fully exhausted other materials will take their place. People use silicon because it's cheaper and processes are established for over 50 years. Going into GaAs or MoS2 or whatever seems to be good sounds promising on paper but the development of suitable (cost efficient) process to rival silicon will require billions of investment that no company wants to do now because silicon works well so far.Beyond silicon lies materials science but shits expensive.
>>16896970>There is an obvious limit to this. What happens then?Just look at the brain. These kinds of computational limits shaped optimization of neuron architecture and processing so long ago, we share the fundamental design principles of certain processing areas with mammals we last shared a common ancestor with 95 million years ago.
>>16897278>the biobot deludes itself into thinking it actually answered the question
>>16897304sorry, what?
>>16897307This nigger, whom I recognize, has an obsession with trying to insert his false pop-computationalist belief system into everything, but I challenge you to explain how his post helps address OP's question. What are you supposed to take out of this drivel? That the computers of (let's say) the next century are still gonna be based on today's tech at the core because silicon transistors are represent a local optimum? If so, does the niggercattle computer worshipper understand that human reason exists precisely to prevent Man from being stuck in such a local optimum? Or maybe, to keep with his obsessive theme and delusional belief, I'm supposed to conclude the computers are somehow going to transcend the limits of computation by becoming silicon brains instead of being the mere calculators that they inherently are?
>>16897312>I challenge you to explain how his post helps address OP's questionOP is asking about potential methods of increasing computing speed and efficiency when faced with the physical limits of packing silicon atoms within a limited amount of three-dimensional space.For one, carbon has a higher computing potential than silicon, since it can conduct electrons faster than silicon. If you want to discuss the limits of packing computing power at the atomic level and those limits have already been achieved with silicon, the only next step is carbon since obviously you can't change the intrinsic properties of atoms. Carbon is also more versatile in the bonds it can form, allowing for more configurations. The brain is carbon-based, which makes examining the way in which it processes information a logical first step to examine the applications of using carbon to process data.Second, given the nature of 3D space (3 spatial directions) and the computing limitations inherent in the optimal packing of molecules, there are limited ways to pack as many data processing units as physically possible within a certain amount of space, while maximizing processing output. If one were to speculate on how these limits might be achieved, given our knowledge of the nature of 3D space and the molecular properties of neurons used for computing, then the organization of certain areas of the brain align with those speculative "cosmic speed limits" of processing. If one were to speculate on methods in general on achieving the limits of computing power, once more the brain is a very useful source of inspiration.
>>16897330So do you have actual ideas about how to construct better logic gates out of carbon, or are you just here to advertise pseudoscientific computationalist propaganda? I'm still not seeing any kind of an answer to OP's question.
>>16897330>>16897335All your talk about how much the brain can compute is meaningless intellectual waffling. There's infinitely more computation going on in a glass of water than there is in all of the world's computers combined. Doesn't tell me anything about the suitability of water molecules for computation.
>>16897335https://www.google.com/search?q=carbon nanotube logic gate
>>16896977I'm fucking pumped for the year 2050 year of our Lord where silicon valley releases the 1Å node.
>>16897366>carbon nanotube logic gateThat's indeed a potential answer to OP's question. Too bad no one actually believes brains run on logic gates, let alone CNT ones.>inb4 muh microtubules
>>16896981Does the US have the ability to make 2nm chips? Thought they only had old stuff like timer chips while all the cutting edge stuff was Taiwan and South Korea with support from the Netherlands.
>>16897376muh microtubules thothere has to be a system to transport electrical signals within the cell, otherwise some basic biological processes would not happen at allthere is no other candidate for the wires
>>16897386>muh microtubules thoThose are not CNT logic gates. Kill yourself.
>>16897376>no one actually believes brains run on logic gateshttps://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(15)01191-5
>>16897416>retarded bio-chatbot can't process context
>>16897407I didn't say they are
>>16897416>proximal synapses drive action directly>directlywhen I read such idiocy my instinct is to reach for a gun
>>16897442Then what's your point? Why do you people keep grasping at straws when the closest thing in the brain to a logic gate is far less efficient than silicon logic gates and it's completely obvious rigid, reliable, computer-like computation is not biology's forte?
>>16897462Holy shit you have no fucking clue, it's so painful. >rigid, reliable, computer-like computation is not biology's forteBiological computation is extremely reliable and it's not "computer-like", it's literally a biological computer. Digital computation is basically the most simplistic layer of much more advanced types of computing in biology that rely on pooling inputs, gradients in activation, inhibitory vs excitatory effects of neurons, feeedback mechanisms, etc.>In the brain, there is an epigenetic switchboard of incomprehensibly large yes/no options that are adjusted in response to environmental impact and demands, and induce optimized adaptations during subsequent, additional digital events. Those mechanisms keep advancing in complex, non-linear ways determined by self-sustained switchboard reprofiling maintained during the whole life span of an organism.>The all-or-nothing modifications described above do not provoke yes-or-no transcription, but solicit graded transcription dependent on the combination and overall sum of all modifications allowing for successful assembly of the initiation complex. This may result in linear or more sigmoidal time-courses of gene expression. Hence, outcomes are analog events. However, there are also exceptions, where those modifications provoke all-or-nothing events.>Is The Human Brain Analog Or Digital?>This question stems from the knowledge of modern computer technology as described at the beginning of this review. The fundamental difference, however, is that the brain makes use of biomolecules for computation. Many signals sent around the brain use “either-or” states. An action potential is triggered, a cytosine is methylated or not. These events are fundamental elements of communication in brain, as well. However, the binary arithmetic, binary logic or binary addressable memory of a computer chip are in no way sufficient to entail the full computational power of a neuron.
>>16897510Your delusional computationalist ideology has no relation to reality.
>>16897532No, your ideology has no relation to reality.
>golem thinks that if babby's first attempt to describe biology uses computer-adjacent terms, biology becomes a computer
>>16897565
>golem thinks that if babby's first attempt to describe biology uses computer-adjacent terms, biology becomes a computer>golem thinks that if he repeats this dogma over and over, it magically becomes true>like any golem in any age, this golem thinks its priest class knows all the secrets of creation>waaaaw everything is just [most advanced current technology]How can you not hate these "people"?
>>16897595>golem>priest class>secrets of creation
>>16897584>Brains computeinto the trash it goes
>>16897602Just get your computranny religion out of here. No one asked how your spiritual leaders think biology works.
>>16896970Shit, when did the thread become flame war? We were talking about the 2nm thing being a fraud.
>>16897613There is a morbidly obese once tranny who spends literally all day every day here
>>16897618>morbidly obese once trannyYou're morbidly projecting.
>>16897609>your opinioninto the trash it goes
>muh brain is a heckin' computerThreadly reminder that consciousness conclusively refutes computationalism, unless you deny that consciousness is a real, physical phenomenon. If the brain is responsible for consciousness and consciousness is real, the brain cannot be a computer.
>>16897532you really don't understand what's happening around you, do youlemme hit you with a clue-by-four, broheimdigital computers are all sorts of retarded, but the few that interest us here are>dimensionality - biological neural architectures are fractal, of >2 dimensionality, a feat that cannot be replicated on a boolean abacus aka Turing machine, only emulated, within limits and at huge cost>precision - abacuses are limited to byte width or some reasonable multiple thereof, while in biological systems the limit is the physical limit - one electron can make the difference between spike and no spike, and often does>fundamental nature of computation process - current day digital computers shoehorn quantum processes into binary beancounting, as opposed to biological systems which make full use of the possibilities of quantum computation while ALSO running classical computations on the same hardwareall this, I might add, at an energy efficiency level that is absolutely insane to contemplate, somewhere between one and two orders of magnitude above the physical limit
>>16898031>posting irrelevant AI slop unironicallyDon't care. See >>16897969
>>16898033I used my brain and fingers to type all thatyou lack respect for biology lolalso you don't get to talk about consciousness unless you can define consciousness in a way where I can both reliably detect it by experiment and disprove its existence, also by experiment, where appropriate, which you cannot do
>>16898037>immediately takes a step in the direction of consciousness denialismEvery single time. This is probably the sole reason why computationalist scam is being peddled so hard.
>>16897969define consciousness please
>>16898083>immediately takes a step in the direction of consciousness denialism>immediately gets called out>immediately backpedals to " define 'define' " to stifle any actual discussionEvery single time. This is probably the sole reason why computationalist scam is being peddled so hard.
>>16898089i don't know what consciousness denialism is, i personally think consciousness is very real, but maybe my idea of what consciousness is, is different from yours, so i'm curious what you think consciousness is and how you would describe it so we can discuss it
>>16898092>i personally think consciousness is very realIs it a physical phenomenon?
>>16898093i don't know, it's there right, so it exists, but how it exists i don't know
>>16898094>i don't knowSo it's real but it's not a physical process? Are you a Dualist?
>>16898122i don't know, i don't know enough about it to truly say, so what do you think it is?
>>16898041this is so precious(ly stupid)I have a solid subjective experience of what I call my own consciousness, but I would be hard pressed to prove even that to you, let alone the existence of said consciousness.How do you know I'm not three LLMs in a raincoat? You don't.
Asperger brains make normie brains feel insecure about their masculinity. Normie brains wish they could distance themselves from their emotions like psychopaths so they could better pursue their goals, while asperger brains do it naturally without having to make the compromises of a psychopath.
>>16898206>i don't knowThen I don't really care what you think. You basically don't think anything.
>>16898212>computranny ventures more directly into consciousness denialismFor all intents and purposes, you ARE a biological LLM and not a true human. I've determined this empirically. I won't tell you how. Seethe about it.
>>16898235i think you don't have an answer yourself
>>16898241I could answer the question I posed to you without hesitation: I think consciousness is a natural phenomenon as real as any other.
>>16898244You can't understand anything he's said about brains though, which means you are too stupid to participate in the conversation. You don't belong here.
>>16898246>You can't understand anything he's said about brains though, which means you are too stupid to participate in the conversation. You don't belong here.It's unlikely, just on a statistical level, that you're any smarter than me. And that's figure I figure in how fucking retarded you actually sound.
>>16898247before I figure in*
>>16898247You haven't contributed anything to this thread. All you've done is steer it in a direction that belongs more on /x/.Doesn't matter which one of us is smarter, all that matters is it's clear, not just likely, that you're not smart enough to have a productive conversation with the other guy.
>>16898252>Doesn't matter which one of us is smarterIt matters, because you're an imbecile and are in no position to judge contributions (or lack thereof) from someone much more intelligent than you.
>>16898253See >>16898255
>>16898255You're ruining the thread for both those of us who like to lurk, and those who have something to contribute (the other guy).
>>16898257You are "the other guy", obviously foaming at the mouth over your drivel getting dismissed. Nothing relevant about brains has been mentioned ITT. Some retard claims carbon would be optimal for computations because of muh brains. When asked to specify what brain-inspired method of manufacturing carbon logic gates he had in mind, he stopped replying because there isn't any that can actually compete with the functions of silicon.
>>16898261You lack the ability to engage with him on his level, and you have nothing to offer as a counterproposal. You just wandered off into /x/ territory. You don't belong here.
>>16898262Jesus Christ, you're seething. Here are some of your gems from the other thread, just for context:>>16898059>the adaptive state of wakefulness depends on sensory information>>16897994>What you experience as vision is a process that exists entirely independent from the eyesOnce again, you demonstrate that there is zero value in educating 90 IQs and teaching them scientific vocabulary.
>>16898264This is the correct board for discussing those types of things. This is not the correct board for trying to discuss things that lie beyond what we can work with at the empirical level. For better or worse, you don't belong here.
>>16898269>>16898262Jesus Christ, you're seething. Here are some of your gems from the other thread, just for context:>>16898059>the adaptive state of wakefulness depends on sensory information>>16897994>What you experience as vision is a process that exists entirely independent from the eyesOnce again, you demonstrate that there is zero value in educating 90 IQs and teaching them scientific vocabulary.
>>16898275 you don't belong here
>>16898261Why can't carbon compete with the functions of silicon?
>>16898278>Why can't carbon compete with the functions of silicon?Notice how you once again fail at basic reading comprehension.
>you don't belong hereThat absolute desperation for outside approval and fake consensus... kek
>>16898283You can either contribute, or be quiet and lurk. You refuse to do either, which makes you disruptive. You haven't said a single interesting thing in this thread. All you've done is draw negative attention to yourself and waste the other guys time and effort trying to talk to you.
>>16898285>>16898269>>16898262Jesus Christ, you're seething. Here are some of your gems from the other thread, just for context:>>16898059>the adaptive state of wakefulness depends on sensory information>>16897994>What you experience as vision is a process that exists entirely independent from the eyesOnce again, you demonstrate that there is zero value in educating 90 IQs and teaching them scientific vocabulary.
>>16898289You don't belong here
>You don't belong hereGuess how I know you got at least 4 clotshots?
>>16898280Looks to me like carbon is superior to silicon in every conceivable way.
>>16898295Is this you?
>>16898297>Looks to me like carbon is superior to silicon in every conceivable way.Ok, but why are you addressing this to me? Are you really so incapable of basic reading comprehension?
>>16898297It is not even remotely feasible to construct a CPU from carbon nanotubes. Silicon allows the use of lithography, but nanotubes have no such quality.
>>16898303Uhm, sweaty? The brain is LITERALLY made of carbon, and it's a supercomputer, ok? Some areas of the brain have computing units that literally hit the universal computation speed limit.
>>16898304If neurons functioned as transistor logic gates that would have been noticed. The brain doesn't work like a computer.
>>16898303https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-024-01211-2>Here we report a tensor processing unit (TPU) that is based on 3,000 carbon nanotube field-effect transistors and can perform energy-efficient convolution operations and matrix multiplication. The TPU is constructed with a systolic array architecture that allows parallel 2bit integer multiply–accumulate operations. A five-layer convolutional neural network based on the TPU can perform MNIST image recognition with an accuracy of up to 88% for a power consumption of 295µW. We use an optimized nanotube fabrication process that offers a semiconductor purity of 99.9999% and ultraclean surfaces, leading to transistors with high on-current densities and uniformity. Using system-level simulations, we estimate that an 8bit TPU made with nanotube transistors at a 180nm technology node could reach a main frequency of 850MHz and an energy efficiency of 1tera-operations per second per watt.
>>16898308>If neurons functioned as transistor logic gates that would have been noticed.Seems to have been noticed as one of their signalling mechanisms alright.
>>16898308Sweaty? You don't understand. Scientists can LITERALLY model some neuronal structures using logic gates. Don't you see what that means? It means neurons tell you the optimal way to make carbon logic gates, because obviously the brain is heckin' optimized to be a computer - there is literally nothing else it needs to do - and guess what it's made out of? Heckin' neurons.
>>16898314God everything you write is so mind numbingly dull.
>>16898316You don't belong here. This is a science board. We post real science here, like the brain is a supercomputer.
Think about how many computing units fit on this heckin' thing. This is what we're here for. Science diagrams.
>>16898317>>16898318>One such tactic would aim at gradually making these boards less interesting for their users
Good thing they never figured out they could instead just flooding a board with mouth breathing redditors (for example, the sort that believes everything as a computer) to make them less interesting. Imagine how cost-efficient that would be.
>>16898309>3,000 carbon nanotube field-effect transistors3,000 transistors is nothing. You can't even make a good 64-bit adder with that.>we estimate that an 8bit TPU made with nanotube transistors at a 180nm technology node>ESTIMATEBut how big was the 3,000 transistor unit they built? They don't mention that lol.Like I said, completely infeasible to construct a CPU from nanotubes.>>16898312>"lowpass filter, attenuation">"coincidence detection"How convenient that there are enough fudge factors to model completely uncorrelated input and output . This can't be serious.
>>16898328>How convenient that there are enough fudge factors to model completely uncorrelated input and output . This can't be serious.Why even indulge his profound retardation? Those dendrites have literally a million times more atoms that the silicon gates needed to compute the same logic. It's a total nonstarter. Neurons are not optimized for binary logic.
>>16898323>Accuse your opponent of what you are doingThe fact you are using tactics straight out of rules for radicals is proof enough that you are here for destructive purposes.
>>16898345>you are here for destructive purposesI'm not hiding that. I'm here specifically to make it maximally unpleasant and uninteresting for brainlets like you to ever post anything. You won't find me ruining the threads that are inherently inaccessible to brainlets like you, like the generals where people with actual STEM degrees discuss their field. In fact, no one ruins them, because you're not there.
>what happens when we can't fit any more bits on our chips?we encode on smaller stuff>could we use brain technology?lmao notech is basically apples and oranges, and we don't understand the apples
>>16897378Did you not read what he just said? I can make 2nm chips in my garage today.
>>16898347Amazing that you admit it and then follow it up with the exact same tactic that caused you to admit it in the first place, as if that would change anything.
>>16898354What's amazing is that your irredeemably dumb ass thinks it's making sense. Either way, I suggest you to start paying attention that the problems you notice don't tend to appear as often in places you don't feel welcome in, then reflect on what I said, if a disabled brown retard like you is capable of reflection at all.
>>16898374The only problem here is you.
>>16898375The only "problem" is that your Alinsky tactics are obviously failing you and this makes you very unhappy. Anyone with two carbon molecules to rub together knows who pushes the computationalist cancer. It's no coincidence that Saint Dennett was venerated by the Atheist Movement, nor that transhumanism and the (((AI cult))) consist of nothing but computationalists who make it a pastime to spread this dumb propaganda about how everything is a computer. You've been found out.
>>16898384Here you go again proving you have zero interest and therefore grasp of anything scientific or analytical in nature. Your only interest and sphere of knowledge is in social dynamics and politics.
>>16897969This is assuming computers can't be conscious.Faulty assumption.
>>16898571>This is assuming computers can't be conscious.It's fairly obvious that computers can't be conscious, unless you deny consciousness is a real, physical process, because computation simply isn't that.
>>16898399You're one of the countless cretins who crawled here from /pol/ and all your rhetoric is a tacit admission. Your "interest" in science doesn't matter. You have no STEM degree. You have no IQ. You will never be a scientist.Also see >>16898347
>>16898795It's fairly obvious you can't be conscious, unless you deny the nature of consciousness is still unknown, because you'd just give the answer to what it is if you were.
>>16898802>bazingaaa!Don't care. See >>16898788
>>16898807>schizo ramblingDon't care.
>>16898807And speaking of analog computers, that's probably the answer to OP: once you have general-purpose, digital supercomputers, you've unlocked the basis for the ability to manufacture special-purpose, analog computers, because you can create arbitrarily complex control systems. With sufficient mastery of metamaterials, you can more or less manufacture analog computers with arbitrary specifications. With analog computation, you don't have to continually "induce" some simulated pattern of activity and fight entropy, you just let the system be what it is. That's as efficient as you can get. There's also nothing stopping you from creating integrated systems with specialized analog computing units streaming inputs into digital control logic.
>>16898817Clearly, your psychotic delusions preclude you from being able to understand what you're reading. I accept your full concession.
>>16898820You already conceded yourself, sorry, can't really claim someone else's concession unless you've made verifiable claims rooted in actual data. But you haven't, so yeah, just more schizo rambling from you it looks like.
>>16898822You got filtered by that post and you're clearly very upset about not being able to refute or challenge any specific aspect of it.
Scratch a computationalist and a """digital consciousness""" believer bleeds.
>>16898824>not being able to refute or challenge any specific aspect of itIt's schizo mumbo jumbo. What is there to refute about delusions that have no basis in reality?
>>16898846See >>16898824
>>16898847see >>16898846
>>16898849You're really just a mentally ill retard. Just paste that paragraph into whatever chatbot your sort uses to do all its "thinking" and ask it to explain it to you like a child.
Looks like the consciousness worshipping, anti-materialist schizo's handlers haven't euthanized it yet
>>16898850Bla bla bla more schizo rambling without anything tangible.
@16898856See >>16898824, >>16898850Notice how your automatonism forces you to reply again, even though you've conceded multiple times that you can't refute any aspect of what I wrote. :^)
>>16898858>how your automatonism forces you to reply againThen why do you always reply? I have refuted every aspect of what you wrote; you're a schizo. Come up with some data from the external world, calculations, measurements, mathematics, properties of various atoms and we'll talk. Until you do, everything you produce is just random schizo garbage that's only in your head.
>it replied againAnd it WILL do so again.
>>16898862Looks like we're two peas in a pod :) We're just the same
>>16898807>you must be able to abstract the computational logic from the physical means of computation. But once you do that, a computation ceases to be an objective physical process. It's no longer subject to the constraints that allow you to objectively identify physical phenomena. You can distribute the steps of a computation arbitrarily across space and time, up to sequential dependencies. Correlating those steps back into a (logical) process is mere conventionwhat do you mean by distributing the steps arbitrarily? and either way, how does that violates physical constraints if every step is physically performed?
What's going on in this thread?!
>>16898866If you're dealing with something computable, there's a finite algorithm that computes it. Suppose you perform a few steps of it in your notebook today, then you get bored and forget about it, and then you die. You can say the computation is hibernating indefinitely. 200 years later, some descendant of yours finds your old notebooks in the attic and decides to perform a few more steps, so the computation continues. So there's a computational "process" going on as far as a human observer is concerned, but no relevant causality driving the evolution of this "process". It's only by chance that your descendant found your notebook and decided to continue your work. The steps are physical but the computational process they make up is mostly in your head. It's not bound by any characteristic local interactions that causally drive a real, physical phenomenon.
>>16898873>Suppose you perform a few steps of it in your notebook today, then you get bored and forget about it, and then you die. You can say the computation is hibernating indefinitely. 200 years later, some descendant of yours finds your old notebooks in the attic and decides to perform a few more steps, so the computation continues.that's one way to compute something but it's not what a computer does. the principles of an actual computer's operation are physical and the computer is actually driving the computation
>>16898878That misses the emphasis of the argument and my entire point. If the brain is a computer, what does it compute? Computationalist cultists say: consciousness. They think consciousness IS a computation. Ok, so how does the brain compute consciousness? Obviously, they can't even begin to answer this, but let's suppose you got a straight answer, as in an actual, rigorous description of the computation. Now, if consciousness is a computation and I have the relevant description, I can compute it any way I want, so long as I follow this abstract consciousness recipe. To say it only works when done in the specific way the brain does it is literal cargo cult thinking. If I can produce all the same outputs for all the same inputs, I have performed the same computation. So really, the only logical conclusion of computationalism is illusionism and that's why it's being peddled. Otherwise they'd be perfectly happy to recognize the distinction between a computational model of something and the actual thing itself.
>>16898884And of course, if consciousness is not a computation, then the brain is not a computer, no matter what computing analogies and terminology they use to talk about it. It's just Sapir-Whorfists trying to program people's thinking through malicious use of language.
>>16898867Resident schizo is having a melty
>>16898795>It's fairly obvious that computers can't be conscious, unless you deny consciousness is a real, physical process, because computation simply isn't that.You're begging the question.The subject of debate is whether consciousness is a computational process. You can't use the assumption that it's not to justify anything within the context of this discussion.
>>16898796More shameless projection from the guy who has nothing to say that doesn't involve politics or /x/ schizo ramblings. The lens through which you view everything is damning.You don't belong here.
>>16898955>You're begging the question.No, I'm not.>The subject of debate is whether consciousness is a computational processNo, it wasn't.Either way, if you want to have that "debate", you're free to try to refute any of this: >>16898788>>16898873>>16898884>>16898885
>>16899010>you're free to try to refute any of thisEasy, you haven't backed it up with any data or observations. Since it has NOTHING grounded in any kind of measurement that can be manipulated, interpreted or discussed, the entire contents of your arguments reside entirely in your own mind. If you say that your knowledge is objective, based on observations that can be transferred, then transfer those observations through means that can be verified. Whatever opinion you have should be replicable by any other person by going through the same steps of experimentation, observation and interpretation that you have.If you say that your knowledge is subjective and there is something about consciousness and your "insight" that is beyond words and understanding, you also claim that it is unverifiable. I can also say that my knowledge is subjective and there is something about consciousness I know and my insight is beyond words and understanding, so that refutes your position. What are you going to do next, refute my claims with words that you say fall short of being able to describe the true nature of things?
>>16899068>mentally ill retard is having imaginary arguments in its head about things not related to my post
>>16898884>let's suppose you got a straight answer, as in an actual, rigorous description of the computation. Now, if consciousness is a computation and I have the relevant description, I can compute it any way I want, so long as I follow this abstract consciousness recipeand if the description doesn't describe a sequence of steps but the mathematics of all the necessary brain processes?
>>16899073Data, numbers, atoms, electricity, molecules.None of that? No? Everything is in your head. Useless. I'd say "into the trash it goes" but there's nothing to even throw into the trash. You're saying nothing.The universe is a parsnip. I know so because I have esoteric knowledge. You're a retard for not understanding. Refute me. My arguments are too complex for you.
>>16899097
>>16899085>and if the description doesn't describe a sequence of steps but the mathematics of all the necessary brain processes?Then you're no longer even bound to computable functions and aren't really talking about computation. At least not in any normal sense. Just some wishy-washy non-Turing generalization of computation that can be applied to any physical system to claim it's a "computer" without saying anything new or useful about the actual system. If they actually had such a description, they wouldn't have to do this whole "it's just a computer" handwave. They'd say: it's a brain, and then tell you what a brain actually is, in objective and rigorous terms.
>>16899097You don't even understand that he's saying you are displaying complete ignorance of the scientific method.
>>16899187Do you have some kind of interest in stifling any form of productive discussion and brainstorming that could take place here? I've noticed more and more of the threads being posted here are /pol/ related.
>>16899192Do you not realize all you're doing is projecting your own delusions on others and bothering them with it?
>>16899194Is there some kind of anti science movement or cult? I've noticed there seems to be a lot of hostility toward those with a scientific inclination. Or maybe its just normies hating aspies as normal.
>>16899198I want to know more about your views and understand them. Are you motivated by anti ai and see this thread topic as being part of that in some way?
>>16899200I want to believe that somewhere buried under all that abrasiveness you display are good intentions.
>>16898884>If the brain is a computer, what does it computeRight now it's trying to compute what mixture of mental illnesses is required to have your kind of derangement.
>>16899204You are either forgetting or ignoring that scientific discussions can't be had if you have nothing that can worked with empirically. The discussion you are trying to have in this thread doesn't belong in a scientific context. It belongs on another board. Philosophy or /x/ or something else. It doesn't belong here on the science board.
>>16899215Is it possible the reason you are trying to have this discussion here is because you already tried to have it on one of the appropriate boards and didn't like how they went?
>>16899219If that's not what happened, then maybe you're unwilling to have it on a board where people more closely match your interests and will be more willing to engage with you on your level?
>>16899221Maybe you want to avoid confrontation from potential peers?
>>16899223I'm not the same poster as the one you were having that discussion with. I'm not interested enough in your ideology to engage with it.
>>16899226I'm not the same poster as the one you were having that discussion with. It lies outside my sphere of interest and the topic of this thread.
>>16899228If you're not going to engage in any productive discussion then why are you here?
>>16899230If you're not going to engage in any productive discussion then why are you here?
>>16899236Admitting yet again that your only interests lie inside of psychology and politics. You don't belong here.
>>16899239If you're not going to engage in any productive discussion then why are you here?
>>16899241Admitting yet again that your only interests lie inside of psychology and politics.You don't belong here.
>>16898885wooo sapir-whorf mention
>>16899245Admitting yet again that your only interests lie inside of psychology and politics.You don't belong here.
>muh brains are computersEverything is the analog computer of its own dynamics, but that notion of computation is as meaningless as it is trivial. To meaningfully claim that something computes, you must be able to abstract the computational logic from the physical means of computation. But once you do that, a computation ceases to be an objective physical process. It's no longer subject to the constraints that allow you to objectively identify physical phenomena. You can distribute the steps of a computation arbitrarily across space and time, up to sequential dependencies. Correlating those steps back into a (logical) process is mere convention. Real phenomena don't work like that. So you can claim some physical system is a "computer" (i.e. you can read computations into it if you want) but you can't claim whatever you think it computes is what drives or characterizes it as a physical system.
>>16899250If you're not going to engage with the thread topic then why are you here?
>>1689925390% of this thread is two chatbots arguing back and forth.
>>16899258If you're not going to engage in any productive discussion then why are you here?
>>16899258It's obvious that you got filtered and can't respond, but the urge to lash out is too strong. Deliciously mindbroken.
>>16899258You are either forgetting or ignoring that scientific discussions can't be had if you have nothing that can worked with empirically. The discussion you are trying to have in this thread doesn't belong in a scientific context. It belongs on another board. Philosophy or /x/ or something else. It doesn't belong here on the science board.
>>16899266Admitting yet again that your only interests lie inside of psychology and politics.You don't belong here.
>>16899269I'm not the same poster as the one you were having that discussion with. It lies outside my sphere of interest and the topic of this thread.
>>16899271If you're not going to engage in any productive discussion then why are you here?
>>16899272It's obvious that you got filtered and can't respond, but the urge to lash out is too strong. Deliciously mindbroken.
>>16899275If you're not going to engage in any productive discussion then why are you here?
>>16896983Yes. We can always have our feelings hurt by the unkind word of our love... Veronica go out with me we are perfect for one another!Whhhhhyyyyyy...You haven't even seen how awesome my place is.
>>16896975Marketing people. Never trust corpos.
>purpleThat's the quantum juice oozing out.
Once they hit the physical limit for the current system. They'll just switch over to a new system. Probably>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spintronics
>all these deleted postsKek. The schizo broke.
>>16896970Planck scale is the limit and we have extrapolated since Moore's Law was first identified that we would probably reach that scale by mid-century which is exactly why that time-frame coincides with the technological singularity predictions that call for a new computing paradigm to sustain exponential growth.
>>16896983>There's also the limits of human protection. We cover ourselves in cleanroom suits and masjs, but that doesn't protect against everything.Can you elaborate on this please?
>>16896970>What happens then?We are stuck until quantum computers become useful.
>>16902473Static electricity destroying chips probably.
>>16896983>There's also the limits of human protection. We cover ourselves in cleanroom suits and masjs, but that doesn't protect against everything.obvious solution is using robots
