Digital machines can't faithfully simulate chaos — so why assume they can reproduce a mind?
anilkseth · x · 2026-09-18
Roger Highfield argues, alongside neuroscientist Anil Seth, Peter Coveney, Geoff Hinton, and a nod to Penrose, for the case of "Analogue Intelligence": digital computers can't even faithfully simulate a simple chaotic equation, so assuming they can reproduce a mind is unfounded.
Key points:
- The only consciousness we know runs on roughly the power of a dim light bulb — not a water-guzzling server farm
- LLMs are "plausibility machines" that pass Turing's imitation game, but seeming like a mind isn't having one
- Turing himself showed well-defined problems no idealized computer can solve — reason for wariness, not a verdict on machine consciousness
- The digital-vs-analogue question remains strikingly underexplored in AI and consciousness debates
More from AGI Musings
- Survey: 95% of APAC firms claim explainable AI, only half can reconstruct decisions — rvp · 2026-09-18
- Debunker: a superintelligence would colonize the galaxy before killing its creators — ctjlewis · 2026-09-18
- A thermal sensor means it's not air-gapped: X debate on runaway AI safety arguments — ctjlewis · 2026-09-18
- WIRED: scientists say AI bioweapon apocalypse risk is overblown — nordicinst · 2026-09-18
- Poll: Americans see serious AI extinction risk — commentators invoke the GMO panic analogy — _onionesque · 2026-09-18
- Ed Zitron walks back debate stance, now claims AI misbehavior was researcher-staged hype — Many_Consequence_337 · 2026-09-18