[–] BoraxTheFungarian 1 point -1 points 0 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.
[–] digitalentity1497 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It would have to pass some sort of test to prove if it's self aware.
[–] yergi 0 points 1 point 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.
[–] JonReeeeed ago
I think so. The machine would be incredibly large though.
It's amazing how our brains are able to do what it takes companies that use 2% of the world's electricity do though
[–] TheBuddha 0 points 1 point 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.
[–] fusir 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
This is a joke right. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf
[–] 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.
[–] theoldones 0 points 4 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
[–] goatsandbros 0 points 1 point 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!
[–] fusir 0 points 1 point 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.