9 ms·

What's there to understand? We know how intelligence "happened". We just need to build a few million human-sized brains, attach the universe, and simulate a few

What's there to understand? We know how intelligence "happened". We just need to build a few million human-sized brains, attach the universe, and simulate a few billion years of evolution. Whatever comes out of that could just be called "AGI" by definition.

yters 7y ago
We don't know that's how intelligence happened. That's just speculation based on materialist assumptions. Intelligence is most likely immaterial, i.e. abstract concepts, free will, mathematics, consciousness, etc. In which case, it's beyond anything in this physical universe.
- gbrown 7y ago
  [Citation Needed]
  - dnadler 7y ago
    That's precisely the point, right?
    - gbrown 7y ago
      The above poster was making magical assertions as if they were well established without presenting evidence.
      - yters 7y ago
        The evidence is literally the very things by which we perceive all other scientific evidence: consciousness, abstract thought, mathematics. All three are clearly non physical. People have to make up elaborate, incoherent explanations to try and explain how they are physical. The fact it is so hard, even impossible, to do shows the items are not physical.
        gbrown 7y ago
        Consciousness is clearly nonphysical? No offense, but that's simply nonsense. Why is consciousness modified by drugs? Why can consciousness be damaged by physical trauma? When you can interact with something in the physical world, that is a pretty strong indication that you're dealing with a physical phenomenon In fact, it's not even clear what a "non-physical" phenomenon is if you drill deep enough. The existance of abstractions doesn't change granular reality. For example, a neural network implemented on a computer is highly abstracted, but still implemented on physical silicon. I suggest you look up the philisophical history of dualism - you're a bit behind.
        yters 7y ago
        If I turn off your computer you cannot respond to me. Does that mean you are your computer?
        gbrown 7y ago
        If I smash my computer to atoms, I've destroyed it entirely - not severed a mysterious connection to its incorporeal self. Your assertion is essentially: "I am conscious, therefore consciousness is non-physical". The conclusion does not follow from the observation.
        yters 7y ago
        Returning to your counter argument, do you see the connection with my computer analogy?
        gbrown 7y ago
        Yes - your computer analogy conflated me (a human person, existing in the physical world) with a nonphysical intelligence, of which we have no evidence and which isn't even characterized in a meaningful way - it's just a placeholder for "mystical stuff I feel but don't understand". If you want to say you believe what you do on faith, or that it's your own spiritual belief and therefore none of my business, I won't begrudge you that and I won't bother you about it. You seem to be asserting, however, that there exists empirical evidence of non-corporeal souls (though you didn't use this word). I disagree on that point, vigorously.
- mlyle 7y ago
  Whacking your head with a hammer seems to take chunks of it away, though, which is a bit of an argument against it being immaterial. ;)
  - yters 7y ago
    Eating a hamburger helps me grow, but that doesn't mean I am a hamburger. Or, another analogy, if you smash my computer, I won't be able to type this response to you, but that doesn't mean I am my computer. If the brain is an antenna for intelligence, then damaging the antenna will damage the signal, but doesn't damage the source.
    - sanxiyn 7y ago
      Brain functions under electromagnetic shielding, so are you proposing some new physical force?
      - yters 7y ago
        I'm proposing the mind is non physical and interacts with the physical brain, analogous to a signal and antenna.
    - visarga 7y ago
      > if the brain is an antenna for intelligence And what causes the intelligence that is simply being channeled by such a brain? Is it turtles all the way down? Let me counter your position with another: the brain is that which protects the body and the genes. Essentially it means to find food, safety and make babies. But in order to do that we have evolved society, language, culture and technology. It's still simply a fight for life against entropy. The brain learns what actions lead to best rewards and what actions and situations are dangerous. And if it doesn't, then death acts like a filter and improves the next generation of intelligent agents to make them more attuned to survival. And it all stems from self replication in an environment shared with many other agents and limited resources. You see, my short explanation covers the origin, purpose and evolution of intelligence. The 'brain is an antenna' would work only if you consider the constraints of the environment as the source and the brain as the 'receiver' of signals.
- visarga 7y ago
  > it's beyond anything in this physical universe Your way of thinking leads to dualism, which has been proven to be a bad approach to the problem of consciousness. Dualism doesn't explain anything, just moves the problem outside of the 'material' realm into fantasy lala-land.
  - yters 7y ago
    Hey, if materialism cannot explain reality, then why stick with a bad hypothesis? Sticking your fingers in your ears and calling any alternative 'lala-land' sounds pretty anti-intellectual.
    - visarga 7y ago
      I am not a materialist, I am a physicalist. And la-la land is just a fit metaphor for thinking that conscious experience is explained by a theory that can't be proven or disproven. If you think your consciousness is received by the brain-antenna from the macrocosmic sphere of absolute consciousness (or God, or whatever you call it) then remember about your mother and father, and the world that supported your and fed you experiences. They are responsible for your consciousness. Your experience comes from your parents and the world, and you are missing the obvious while embracing a nice fantasy. And if you don't make babies you won't extend your consciousness past your death. Your parents did, and here you are, all conscious and spiritual.
      - yters 7y ago
        How do you prove/disprove physicalism?
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Intelligence is most likely immaterial, i.e. abstract concepts, free will, mathematics, consciousness, etc. In which case, it's beyond anything in this physical universe. For the purposes of my argument, intelligence is a set of behaviors that would be described as "intelligent" by our contemporaries. I have no use for an inscrutable philosophical definition of intelligence, consciousness, free will, or any of that stuff. I'm convinced that these behaviors arose as a result of natural physical processes and that if we were to reproduce them, we would "most likely" receive similar results. We can already observe this process by simulating simpler life forms[1]. Of course that's speculation, but it has better foundations than "it's beyond anything in this physical universe". That's the scientific equivalent of "giving up". [1] http://openworm.org/ http://openworm.org/
  - yters 7y ago
    Why is that the same as 'giving up'? I call it a better hypothesis. It's like saying there is a halting problem and there are problems that are fundamentally unsolvable by computers. If true, it's pointless trying to create an algorithm to solve the halting problem. Instead, perhaps the mind is a halting oracle, and we can progress even further in the sciences by that realization.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      > Why is that the same as 'giving up'? I call it a better hypothesis. It's not a hypothesis, because it doesn't explain anything. It's also not falsifiable, so it is not useful for the purposes of science. > It's like saying there is a halting problem and there are problems that are fundamentally unsolvable by computers The halting problem is a rigorously defined mathematical problem which has a mathematical proof that demonstrates that it is indeed unsolvable. That's entirely different from saying that "there might be such a thing as a halting problem and it's probably unsolvable". Furthermore, the halting problem is abstract from physical reality. It is true regardless of anything observed in physical reality. In physical reality, there is no such thing as a program that will not terminate, because there is no such thing as a computer that runs forever. The "physical halting problem" is solvable. The answer is always: The program will halt at some point because of thermodynamics. Similarly, it is my position that the physical phenomenon of intelligence can be entirely explained by natural processes involving no metaphysics whatsoever. > Instead, perhaps the mind is a halting oracle, and we can progress even further in the sciences by that realization. Perhaps it is, but there is no such realization. You haven't even defined what you mean by intelligence and why that would even require a non-materialist explanation.
sanxiyn 7y ago
I mean, say, photosynthesis also happened by evolution. There is still a lot to understand about photosynthesis, and we do understand now, although it took decades of research.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  Sure, but we understand enough so that we can recreate photosynthesis in a lab. There are many drugs which do work, but we don't know exactly how they work. The point is, it's likely not a necessary precondition to understand AGI in order to create it.

yters 7y ago

We don't know that's how intelligence happened. That's just speculation based on materialist assumptions. Intelligence is most likely immaterial, i.e. abstract concepts, free will, mathematics, consciousness, etc. In which case, it's beyond anything in this physical universe.

gbrown 7y ago
[Citation Needed]
- dnadler 7y ago
  That's precisely the point, right?
  - gbrown 7y ago
    The above poster was making magical assertions as if they were well established without presenting evidence.
    - yters 7y ago
      The evidence is literally the very things by which we perceive all other scientific evidence: consciousness, abstract thought, mathematics. All three are clearly non physical. People have to make up elaborate, incoherent explanations to try and explain how they are physical. The fact it is so hard, even impossible, to do shows the items are not physical.
      - gbrown 7y ago
        Consciousness is clearly nonphysical? No offense, but that's simply nonsense. Why is consciousness modified by drugs? Why can consciousness be damaged by physical trauma? When you can interact with something in the physical world, that is a pretty strong indication that you're dealing with a physical phenomenon In fact, it's not even clear what a "non-physical" phenomenon is if you drill deep enough. The existance of abstractions doesn't change granular reality. For example, a neural network implemented on a computer is highly abstracted, but still implemented on physical silicon. I suggest you look up the philisophical history of dualism - you're a bit behind.
        yters 7y ago
        If I turn off your computer you cannot respond to me. Does that mean you are your computer?
        gbrown 7y ago
        If I smash my computer to atoms, I've destroyed it entirely - not severed a mysterious connection to its incorporeal self. Your assertion is essentially: "I am conscious, therefore consciousness is non-physical". The conclusion does not follow from the observation.
        yters 7y ago
        Returning to your counter argument, do you see the connection with my computer analogy?
        gbrown 7y ago
        Yes - your computer analogy conflated me (a human person, existing in the physical world) with a nonphysical intelligence, of which we have no evidence and which isn't even characterized in a meaningful way - it's just a placeholder for "mystical stuff I feel but don't understand". If you want to say you believe what you do on faith, or that it's your own spiritual belief and therefore none of my business, I won't begrudge you that and I won't bother you about it. You seem to be asserting, however, that there exists empirical evidence of non-corporeal souls (though you didn't use this word). I disagree on that point, vigorously.
mlyle 7y ago
Whacking your head with a hammer seems to take chunks of it away, though, which is a bit of an argument against it being immaterial. ;)
- yters 7y ago
  Eating a hamburger helps me grow, but that doesn't mean I am a hamburger. Or, another analogy, if you smash my computer, I won't be able to type this response to you, but that doesn't mean I am my computer. If the brain is an antenna for intelligence, then damaging the antenna will damage the signal, but doesn't damage the source.
  - sanxiyn 7y ago
    Brain functions under electromagnetic shielding, so are you proposing some new physical force?
    - yters 7y ago
      I'm proposing the mind is non physical and interacts with the physical brain, analogous to a signal and antenna.
  - visarga 7y ago
    > if the brain is an antenna for intelligence And what causes the intelligence that is simply being channeled by such a brain? Is it turtles all the way down? Let me counter your position with another: the brain is that which protects the body and the genes. Essentially it means to find food, safety and make babies. But in order to do that we have evolved society, language, culture and technology. It's still simply a fight for life against entropy. The brain learns what actions lead to best rewards and what actions and situations are dangerous. And if it doesn't, then death acts like a filter and improves the next generation of intelligent agents to make them more attuned to survival. And it all stems from self replication in an environment shared with many other agents and limited resources. You see, my short explanation covers the origin, purpose and evolution of intelligence. The 'brain is an antenna' would work only if you consider the constraints of the environment as the source and the brain as the 'receiver' of signals.
visarga 7y ago
> it's beyond anything in this physical universe Your way of thinking leads to dualism, which has been proven to be a bad approach to the problem of consciousness. Dualism doesn't explain anything, just moves the problem outside of the 'material' realm into fantasy lala-land.
- yters 7y ago
  Hey, if materialism cannot explain reality, then why stick with a bad hypothesis? Sticking your fingers in your ears and calling any alternative 'lala-land' sounds pretty anti-intellectual.
  - visarga 7y ago
    I am not a materialist, I am a physicalist. And la-la land is just a fit metaphor for thinking that conscious experience is explained by a theory that can't be proven or disproven. If you think your consciousness is received by the brain-antenna from the macrocosmic sphere of absolute consciousness (or God, or whatever you call it) then remember about your mother and father, and the world that supported your and fed you experiences. They are responsible for your consciousness. Your experience comes from your parents and the world, and you are missing the obvious while embracing a nice fantasy. And if you don't make babies you won't extend your consciousness past your death. Your parents did, and here you are, all conscious and spiritual.
    - yters 7y ago
      How do you prove/disprove physicalism?
gridlockd 7y ago
> Intelligence is most likely immaterial, i.e. abstract concepts, free will, mathematics, consciousness, etc. In which case, it's beyond anything in this physical universe. For the purposes of my argument, intelligence is a set of behaviors that would be described as "intelligent" by our contemporaries. I have no use for an inscrutable philosophical definition of intelligence, consciousness, free will, or any of that stuff. I'm convinced that these behaviors arose as a result of natural physical processes and that if we were to reproduce them, we would "most likely" receive similar results. We can already observe this process by simulating simpler life forms[1]. Of course that's speculation, but it has better foundations than "it's beyond anything in this physical universe". That's the scientific equivalent of "giving up". [1] http://openworm.org/ http://openworm.org/
- yters 7y ago
  Why is that the same as 'giving up'? I call it a better hypothesis. It's like saying there is a halting problem and there are problems that are fundamentally unsolvable by computers. If true, it's pointless trying to create an algorithm to solve the halting problem. Instead, perhaps the mind is a halting oracle, and we can progress even further in the sciences by that realization.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > Why is that the same as 'giving up'? I call it a better hypothesis. It's not a hypothesis, because it doesn't explain anything. It's also not falsifiable, so it is not useful for the purposes of science. > It's like saying there is a halting problem and there are problems that are fundamentally unsolvable by computers The halting problem is a rigorously defined mathematical problem which has a mathematical proof that demonstrates that it is indeed unsolvable. That's entirely different from saying that "there might be such a thing as a halting problem and it's probably unsolvable". Furthermore, the halting problem is abstract from physical reality. It is true regardless of anything observed in physical reality. In physical reality, there is no such thing as a program that will not terminate, because there is no such thing as a computer that runs forever. The "physical halting problem" is solvable. The answer is always: The program will halt at some point because of thermodynamics. Similarly, it is my position that the physical phenomenon of intelligence can be entirely explained by natural processes involving no metaphysics whatsoever. > Instead, perhaps the mind is a halting oracle, and we can progress even further in the sciences by that realization. Perhaps it is, but there is no such realization. You haven't even defined what you mean by intelligence and why that would even require a non-materialist explanation.

sanxiyn 7y ago

I mean, say, photosynthesis also happened by evolution. There is still a lot to understand about photosynthesis, and we do understand now, although it took decades of research.

gridlockd 7y ago
Sure, but we understand enough so that we can recreate photosynthesis in a lab. There are many drugs which do work, but we don't know exactly how they work. The point is, it's likely not a necessary precondition to understand AGI in order to create it.