> So why we need AI to understand causation when even we don’t have it. We have causation. For example, it is impossible to communicate ideas, for example, wit

> So why we need AI to understand causation when even we don’t have it. We have causation. For example, it is impossible to communicate ideas, for example, without resorting to clear distinction of cause and effect. "To turn lights on press a button." It implies causation: pressing a button causes lights to turn on. It is impossible to express with correlation only. > It’s correlation all the way down. It is a reductionism. Like atoms have no life in them, therefore there is no life. > We should strive for truth but know that we will never achieve any It depends... We can know some Truths already, the trouble is we have no way to distinguish them from mere truths, which are just waiting for a counter example. In this sense we either achieved Truth already, or at least have a good chance to achieve it in a future. > that is only one counter example from disproving entire theories. Good theories cannot be disproved. Newton's gravitation is an example of this: it seems impossible to disprove. It has known applicability limits and it just works within them. I do not believe it will be disproved in a future. Or Euclid geometry on a plane as a different example.