5 ms·

Take it further. As a byproduct of chasing AGI we discover there is no soul and that we're just organic (inneficient) robots with previously incalculable inputs

by rapind 9y ago

Take it further. As a byproduct of chasing AGI we discover there is no soul and that we're just organic (inneficient) robots with previously incalculable inputs. Great news, we can hack oursleves, augment ourselves, you name it. However, meaning eludes us. No one cares, carbon or silicon based. The end.

yters 9y ago
It doesn't seem to you that AGI is impossible?
- rapind 9y ago
  It's a coin flip for me at this point. I'm an agnostic I guess. There are people far smarter than I that have embraced religion of some sort, so I don't feel too bad about it. Heads: If all we are is math, then eventually, through smarter and smarter computers, we have a chance of solving it... and it'll probably happen fast once (if) we invent AIG. This will inevitably resolve that free will is an illusion. It's kind of the ultimate atom bomb in a way I suppose, but without maliciousness (and wouldn't you want to know anyways??). Tails: If we're something more than math, a soul or what have you, then we probably can't create pure AIG, at least not without magic. We might create an approximation that uses sufficient inputs to make it almost impossible to tell the difference though. That could be a really useful tool (or weapon...).
  - yters 9y ago
    My thought is either way AGI is impossible. If we are entirely math, it seems unlikely the mind can understand itself. I.e. there is minimal program that represents the mind, and if the mind understood itself, then it'd contain a compression of itself, which is this minimal program. However, now the minimal program representing the mind containing the mind (MCtM) is bigger, so the MCtM does not contain itself. A rebuttal is that perhaps there is a fixed point where the size does not keep increasing. If there is something non-mathy about the mind, then of course it cannot be captured (entirely) as a mathematical equation. This would imply religious concepts such as the soul are true, but if we can detect the non-mathy aspect then it is still scientific. We'd have a scientific religion.

by rapind 9y ago

yters 9y ago

It doesn't seem to you that AGI is impossible?

rapind 9y ago
It's a coin flip for me at this point. I'm an agnostic I guess. There are people far smarter than I that have embraced religion of some sort, so I don't feel too bad about it. Heads: If all we are is math, then eventually, through smarter and smarter computers, we have a chance of solving it... and it'll probably happen fast once (if) we invent AIG. This will inevitably resolve that free will is an illusion. It's kind of the ultimate atom bomb in a way I suppose, but without maliciousness (and wouldn't you want to know anyways??). Tails: If we're something more than math, a soul or what have you, then we probably can't create pure AIG, at least not without magic. We might create an approximation that uses sufficient inputs to make it almost impossible to tell the difference though. That could be a really useful tool (or weapon...).
- yters 9y ago
  My thought is either way AGI is impossible. If we are entirely math, it seems unlikely the mind can understand itself. I.e. there is minimal program that represents the mind, and if the mind understood itself, then it'd contain a compression of itself, which is this minimal program. However, now the minimal program representing the mind containing the mind (MCtM) is bigger, so the MCtM does not contain itself. A rebuttal is that perhaps there is a fixed point where the size does not keep increasing. If there is something non-mathy about the mind, then of course it cannot be captured (entirely) as a mathematical equation. This would imply religious concepts such as the soul are true, but if we can detect the non-mathy aspect then it is still scientific. We'd have a scientific religion.