Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short: your brain is not a computer.
Excellent post. The unspoken underlying premise is that when we die we simply cease to exist. No soul or spirit goes on to an afterlife. That is an invention of human arrogance.
I've gotten down to "We simply sing or recite – no retrieval necessary." I have to say I really see this as a load of bull. He's using a lot of substitution of words that amount to the same thing in the end; the same end result. How these things are done in the human brain and a computer are not important. Until a computer is developed that actually utilizes brain tissue, it will never process anything in the same way that a human brain does.
However, what matters is essential functioning. To say the brain changes due to experience and so you can just sing a song without retrieval is pretty much saying that memory itself in essence does not exist. Technically speaking, the storage of information -changes- a computer, but we call it memory. The same could be said of the brain. No matter how it's technically done, a person has memories, whether imperfect or not. In essence, we do process information, however different in technical detail that might be to a computer, the basic function still happens. Calling processes by different names doesn't negate what happens.
Great article. I've been unconvinced by the proclamations made by various futurists, and I'm glad to see there's reason to be sceptical.
@evestrat, I guess my sticking point has been this notion that computing speed would somehow mean computers would not only be able to do the things we aren't good at (e.g., computation and quick data retrieval) but that it would translate into consciousness and that computers would have innate desires of their own that might jeopardize humanity — like Skynet or the Matrix machines. That's not to say we couldn't eventually develop artificial consciousness, but I don't think there's good evidence were on the cusp right now.
@resserts I agree with you that we're not on the cusp of artificial conciousness. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that development has been focused on specific tasks, instead of being generalized. This also means that any kind of learning such an AI system does is euqally task-oriented, and not generalized. As long as AI systems remain largely in the task-oriented domain, artificial conciousness will remain far out of reach.