> After reading several, but not all, posts on this topic I haven't
> really seen any discussions on computational vs. non-computational
> actions. If I am correctly remembering what I learned several years
> ago on the subject of AI, humans are capable of non-computational
> thoughts. Thoughts that cannot be expressed algorithmically. Since an
> algorithm is a computational procedure, basically the action of some
> Turing machine, and this alone is what "drives" computers, computers
> could never be capable of non-computational problem solving or human
> "understanding". Overly simplified to be sure, as much of my writing
> has been of late.
Well, we have to look at what this "non-computational thought" business means. First of all, the way we _experience_ our thoughts, and the means by which these thoughts actually occur, are two very different things. if I recall my mother's face, I'm doing _something_ in my brain. But I am not deciding which neurotransmitters are released, and where, and when. As I've said before, the fact that we do not yet understand how the mind works indicates that all pronouncements against strong AI should be taken with a grain of salt.
Second, it's not such a jump to presume that human minds may be represented, or mirrored, with computational models. After all, our brains are physical entities, and we are gradually learning how it physically functions. A physical function is, in theory, something that can be _computed_; it can be predicted (somewhat), modelled), or even mimicked, depending on available technology. And there's no reason to suppose that the human brain is somehow unique as a physical phenomena.
> Is Hawking doing work on AI? If not, which I suspect, his opinions
> carry no more weight than anyone else's on this list on this subject.
> There seems to be this strange idea that being a credentialed well
> respected individual in one field gives that persons opinions in
> another field additional merit.
He's not. But your comments are definitely true.