0
4

[–] theoldones 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

completely mechanical as in moving parts and gears, like a clockwork engine?

with enough size and parts, there chances would be equal to an electronic computer

0
1

[–] fusir 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

There is one advantage I see the electronic computers for nearly unbounded finite complexity. That is that a computer is built around an adder. Nearly everything else is built around it. Multiplication, division, goto statements, incrementing the read instruction from machine code, addressing ram.

Adders can be built mechanically but because the adder in a computer is electronic a single one can be utilized by multiple components as long as they can time their use. Giving access to an adder to multiple mechanical systems would be impressive so either we need a fuck ton of adders or we need some genius mechanical circuitry.

0
1

[–] goatsandbros 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I wonder whether there is a practical limit to the computing power, given current materials, or maybe even a theoretical limit, at some point. When would friction come into play, or the additive mechanical backlash of all the parts be sufficient to either interfere with the accuracy of the device, or even completely destroy it while in operation? Could atomic factors even come into importance, eventually?

Malicious hacking could even take on new dimensions: give the machine something to do that would cause it to move somehow at its own resonant frequency, and eventually tear itself apart!

0
2

[–] Damnpasswords 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yes

0
0

[–] MrPim ago 

Im going to say theoretically yes, but that machine would be the size of our planet.

0
1

[–] TheBuddha 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Hey,I just came across this and it made me come back to this thread.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987

It's about the impossibility of supersized machines. It is salient, I feel, in that the machine to do this would almost certainly complex and large.

0
1

[–] fusir 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

This is a joke right. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf

0
0

[–] TheBuddha ago  (edited ago)

Sorry, had to delete my first reply, I wanted to add to it. Yes and no. Look at the publication date. However, the concept is that machines can't actually get that really, really large. You lose efficiencies, you have structural issues, etc... But, it seemed salient as the ideas are similar. But, yes, it's largely meant as humor with a bit of seriousness to it. Give the full thing a read, of you want.

0
1

[–] yergi 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Interesting thought experiment.

I would say that while it would be technically possible, the machine would be immense, requiring so many parts that it would be far larger than a planet! And, due to the speed at which gears operate, as opposed to the near speed of light (as computers operate), it would be very impossible for a human to interact with the machine, because a single mechanical thought would take far longer than the span of a human life to form. So, it would be impossible to perform a Turing test, and ultimately, impossible to prove whether it was self aware at all.

If it's impossible to prove, is it real?

So, technically possible yes. Scientifically possible, no.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] yergi ago 

A gestalt consciousness?

0
1

[–] fusir 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

So we should also talk about what it takes for an electronic system to be self aware. I personally don't like the term self aware because if my ifconfig includes a 127.0.0.1 and if I can send to an api my hostname for a callback function then technically it is self aware. I programmed it to be self aware.

What we really mean is intellegent enough to independently become conscious. To do that with a machine you likely need a neural net, a simulation of an animal brain. I see three classes of mechanical system we need to talk about. A general computing device built out of mechanical parts. A machine calculator built for the math involved. Machinary that can perform in analog what a computer would do digitally but is simulating analog.

The way a computer does NN is mathimatically intensive so I think a mechanical general computation device would get run into the ground running NN code on it.

One way to speed this up is to instead build a physical unit for each node of your NN and each synapse of your NN and have them do the math for themselves. So you would still be treating NN as a mathimatical process but you would be parallelizing it with machines that can only do one kind of calculation, aposed to computing an NN on something with mechanical RAM and a processor.

The way NNs work is to simulate the analog processes in our brain. Therefore we might be able to do the whole thing in analog. There are two different types off NN. One is a type of filter/transform on data. Data goes in one layer, goes to another, and so forth until it reaches our end layer. Each node of one layer is connected to every node of the next layer and each connection has a weight for how much impact it applies. The impacts are summed on each node and the result is "normalized" bringing its result closer to zero or one but not absolutely zero or one. The communication and sum of synaptic signals could be either a series of differencials (mechanical) or the sum of applied pressure if it was piston based.

The next kind of NN is stochastic meaning it has random impulses that fire. It's "layers" aren't organized necissarily into actual layers. If an impulse is given to one node it makes it more excited and more likely to give off impulses itself. Each node has different properties about how recent an impulse effects its likelihood of giving an impulse. You would need to create some way for machines to behave probabalistically and dependent on "recent" events.

0
1

[–] digitalentity1497 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

It would have to pass some sort of test to prove if it's self aware.

1
-1

[–] BoraxTheFungarian 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

My best educated guess would say no... But I believe it also has to do with your definitions of awareness and self.

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)