3 ms·

This is what struck me as well. The explanation given for the rejection of panpsychism is that it's a non-scientific (unfalsifiable) theory. I think sooner or l

by migf 4y ago

This is what struck me as well. The explanation given for the rejection of panpsychism is that it's a non-scientific (unfalsifiable) theory. I think sooner or later you have to confront the fundamental mystery of how it feels to exist, and that we might not have the tools to access that mystery being trapped inside it and all. Still, even if we allow panpsychism, I think there's a lot of merit in the author's points here... It seems unlikely that any system we build will be able to develop a robust enough model of reality if it can't learn by affecting reality.

karmakaze 4y ago
> develop a robust enough model of reality if it can't learn by affecting reality This seems like comparing AlphaGo with AlphaZero, with the former learning from professional games and the latter from self-play. AlphaZero is better but both understand the game well enough to bead pros. In particular most believed for quite a while that something like AlphaGo would not be possible along similar lines of reasoning about AGI. Or consider the thought experiment if the machine was given the ability to perform experiments and measurements in the real world of its own choosing. Would this make AGI more possible or still only similarly possible?