5 ms·

The idea that there’s some ‘ information-theoretic barrier for us to understand the “true nature” or “essence” of our own intelligence’ sounds more religious to

The idea that there’s some ‘ information-theoretic barrier for us to understand the “true nature” or “essence” of our own intelligence’ sounds more religious to me. If evolution can cross that barrier just by banging molecules together and seeing which ones work, it seems unlikely there’s some causal disconnect that makes it impossible for us to get there by thinking about it.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> If evolution can cross that barrier just by banging molecules together and seeing which ones work, it seems unlikely there’s some causal disconnect that makes it impossible for us to get there by thinking about it. Evolution also crossed the flight barrier by banging molecules together. I don't think banging molecules together without having an understanding of physics and the forces involved would have been a viable means for us to get to flight.
- jameshart 3y ago
  That’s… not a refutation of my point. AI/flight analogies are tired, but the OPs argument amounts to the equivalent of, before the Wright Brothers, proclaiming ‘there’s an inherent inability for humans to ever conceive of a way to engineer heavier than air flight’. It’s a ‘man was never mean to fly, therefore heavier than air flight is impossible’ argument.
- shawnz 3y ago
  But wasn't it through experimentation that we developed that understanding? And in the earliest phases of that experimentation, that's when our understanding was at its weakest, right? You almost seem to be implying that we had the understanding before ever attempting the experiments.
mejutoco 3y ago
I dont have a strong opinion about it, but when I read parents post I immediately thought of Gödel s works and how there are limits of what you can know within a system (and in Mathematics no less). Thinking that something similar exists in intelligence does not seem so far fetched. As a hypothesis, of course.
- jameshart 3y ago
  And yet we can use mathematics to know that that limit exists. It’s a powerful thing, mathematics. Gödel doesn’t say ‘mathematics cannot contemplate itself’. Quite the opposite.
  - mejutoco 3y ago
    It is an analogy to mention that is not a far fetched idea that there are limits. As far as I recall, one of the results of Gödel is that a system capable of Arithmetic cannot prove certain things about itself. Aka there are limits within a system. My claim was about limits existing.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  The reason it seems far fetched is we have one example of a mechanistic, physics based machine that we know can perform the computations necessary to produce intelligence. I could understand the hypothesis that AGI is not computable, if we didn’t have an existing example of a machine that can produce AGI. Since we do have an existing machine that can produce AGI, we would have to suppose it does something: - outside of physics to achieve its results - performs some operation that is impossible for us to understand or replicate Both of those seem… unlikely to me.
  - jprete 3y ago
    It seems like an article of faith to believe that the universe is a computer in the first place. Without that assumption, we don't even know that intelligence is computation.
    - ncallaway 3y ago
      The article of faith is not that the universe is a computer. The "article of faith" is that the universe follows physical rules. I also don't think it's fair to call it an article of faith, since we have strong evidence to show that _to date_ the universe has followed predictable physical rules. That could, obviously, change at any time, but it seems at least a reasonable prior to assume that the physical rules that we've studied in the past will continue to operate into the future. "The sun will rise tomorrow" is, I _guess_ an article of faith, but I think it's more fair to say it's a reasonable and well founded prediction based on a well studied model of the solar system and the physical laws we've observed the universe follow in the past. So, my beliefs are: - The universe is mechanistic, and follows physical rules - Human beings are also mechanistic, and follow the same physical rules as the universe - Human beings are intelligent - Human beings are at minimum turing complete computers (since you could give me a roll of paper, a set of op-codes, and I could perform calcuations) So, it seems to me a reasonable starting assumption that intelligence is a result of the mechanistic universe. Do we have any evidence for something outside the physical, mechanistic universe impacting human cognition? I'm not aware of any. But we have lots of evidence of the physical, mechanistic universe impacting human cognition and intelligence. I'm willing to acknowledge that we don't know that intelligence is Turing Computable, but I'd argue that intelligence is likely to be a mechanical process that's compatible with the physical rules of the universe. Can we be certain of that? No, we can not be 100% certain. But it seems a much more reasonable and evidenced hypothesis than something which asserts there is a metaphysical process that produces intelligence, but which we have no evidence for. So, no, I don't think it's reasonable to say that assuming a "mechanistic universe" is an article of faith. I think it's a reasonable belief, based on the evidence that we have. What would be an article of faith is asserting that it could _only_ be a mechanistic universe, and refusing to accept any evidence to the contrary. I have not done that.
paganel 3y ago
This is a very mechanic-ist way of looking at things.
- anon84873628 3y ago
  Yes, which seems to be the way the universe works. Duality is a religious belief.
  - paganel 3y ago
    As far as I know we haven't figured it out how the universe works, hence the unified theory debacle and all that.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  Sure, and we have pretty good evidence of the mechanistic operation of the universe from quantum mechanics up, and we haven’t found any evidence of anything outside of that. So, to date, a mechanistic view of the universe seems like one that is the most supported be evidence at the moment. Have we ruled out meta-physics or some kind of duality? No, of course we haven’t. As long as there’s unknown physics, it’s a possibility. But I think if you’re reasoning based on the evidence we’ve been able to collect to date, then you should absolutely favor a mechanistic universe to a dual universe.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

> If evolution can cross that barrier just by banging molecules together and seeing which ones work, it seems unlikely there’s some causal disconnect that makes it impossible for us to get there by thinking about it. Evolution also crossed the flight barrier by banging molecules together. I don't think banging molecules together without having an understanding of physics and the forces involved would have been a viable means for us to get to flight.

jameshart 3y ago
That’s… not a refutation of my point. AI/flight analogies are tired, but the OPs argument amounts to the equivalent of, before the Wright Brothers, proclaiming ‘there’s an inherent inability for humans to ever conceive of a way to engineer heavier than air flight’. It’s a ‘man was never mean to fly, therefore heavier than air flight is impossible’ argument.
shawnz 3y ago
But wasn't it through experimentation that we developed that understanding? And in the earliest phases of that experimentation, that's when our understanding was at its weakest, right? You almost seem to be implying that we had the understanding before ever attempting the experiments.

mejutoco 3y ago

I dont have a strong opinion about it, but when I read parents post I immediately thought of Gödel s works and how there are limits of what you can know within a system (and in Mathematics no less). Thinking that something similar exists in intelligence does not seem so far fetched. As a hypothesis, of course.

jameshart 3y ago
And yet we can use mathematics to know that that limit exists. It’s a powerful thing, mathematics. Gödel doesn’t say ‘mathematics cannot contemplate itself’. Quite the opposite.
- mejutoco 3y ago
  It is an analogy to mention that is not a far fetched idea that there are limits. As far as I recall, one of the results of Gödel is that a system capable of Arithmetic cannot prove certain things about itself. Aka there are limits within a system. My claim was about limits existing.
ncallaway 3y ago
The reason it seems far fetched is we have one example of a mechanistic, physics based machine that we know can perform the computations necessary to produce intelligence. I could understand the hypothesis that AGI is not computable, if we didn’t have an existing example of a machine that can produce AGI. Since we do have an existing machine that can produce AGI, we would have to suppose it does something: - outside of physics to achieve its results - performs some operation that is impossible for us to understand or replicate Both of those seem… unlikely to me.
- jprete 3y ago
  It seems like an article of faith to believe that the universe is a computer in the first place. Without that assumption, we don't even know that intelligence is computation.
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    The article of faith is not that the universe is a computer. The "article of faith" is that the universe follows physical rules. I also don't think it's fair to call it an article of faith, since we have strong evidence to show that _to date_ the universe has followed predictable physical rules. That could, obviously, change at any time, but it seems at least a reasonable prior to assume that the physical rules that we've studied in the past will continue to operate into the future. "The sun will rise tomorrow" is, I _guess_ an article of faith, but I think it's more fair to say it's a reasonable and well founded prediction based on a well studied model of the solar system and the physical laws we've observed the universe follow in the past. So, my beliefs are: - The universe is mechanistic, and follows physical rules - Human beings are also mechanistic, and follow the same physical rules as the universe - Human beings are intelligent - Human beings are at minimum turing complete computers (since you could give me a roll of paper, a set of op-codes, and I could perform calcuations) So, it seems to me a reasonable starting assumption that intelligence is a result of the mechanistic universe. Do we have any evidence for something outside the physical, mechanistic universe impacting human cognition? I'm not aware of any. But we have lots of evidence of the physical, mechanistic universe impacting human cognition and intelligence. I'm willing to acknowledge that we don't know that intelligence is Turing Computable, but I'd argue that intelligence is likely to be a mechanical process that's compatible with the physical rules of the universe. Can we be certain of that? No, we can not be 100% certain. But it seems a much more reasonable and evidenced hypothesis than something which asserts there is a metaphysical process that produces intelligence, but which we have no evidence for. So, no, I don't think it's reasonable to say that assuming a "mechanistic universe" is an article of faith. I think it's a reasonable belief, based on the evidence that we have. What would be an article of faith is asserting that it could _only_ be a mechanistic universe, and refusing to accept any evidence to the contrary. I have not done that.

paganel 3y ago

This is a very mechanic-ist way of looking at things.

anon84873628 3y ago
Yes, which seems to be the way the universe works. Duality is a religious belief.
- paganel 3y ago
  As far as I know we haven't figured it out how the universe works, hence the unified theory debacle and all that.
ncallaway 3y ago
Sure, and we have pretty good evidence of the mechanistic operation of the universe from quantum mechanics up, and we haven’t found any evidence of anything outside of that. So, to date, a mechanistic view of the universe seems like one that is the most supported be evidence at the moment. Have we ruled out meta-physics or some kind of duality? No, of course we haven’t. As long as there’s unknown physics, it’s a possibility. But I think if you’re reasoning based on the evidence we’ve been able to collect to date, then you should absolutely favor a mechanistic universe to a dual universe.