3 ms·
Honestly, yours sounds more like a religious claim that the other. It seems less a religious claim to assert that the human brain is mechanistic, and simply op
by ncallaway 3y ago
Honestly, yours sounds more like a religious claim that the other.
It seems less a religious claim to assert that the human brain is mechanistic, and simply operates using physics to perform complex operations than to assert that there is something “unknowable”, or “outside of physics” that would prevent us from being able to build a similar machine.
If there were 0 examples in the universe, I think your point would be a good one. But, given there is 1 example, I think it stands to reason that there could be more.
I could accept an argument that one might expect it to be hideously complicated, and not something we’ll be able to accomplish for a long time.
But the claim that there’s an information theoretic reason that would absolutely prevent it, would seem to make the claim that there is something metaphysical about the operation of the brain, which seems like a quasi religious claim to me.
- axlee 3y agoI think one of the biggest barriers is that the human brain isn't running on binary code, and attempting to replicate it on our current technology model is doomed to encounter emulation issues.
- ncallaway 3y agoThat’s not an “information theoretic barrier” argument. That’s not an impossibility argument. That’s a “hideously complicated, and not something we’ll be able to accomplish for a long time” argument, which I happily concede may be the case. I see a very very large gulf between: “Impossible in all scenarios” and “totally impractical with current technology”. I was refuting only the former argument.
- mjburgess 3y agoAlmost everything is "outside of physics", this is mainstream physics. All of physics, as formulated, is uncomputable. And what is computable is a radical approximation. Physics cannot formulate descriptions of climates, or even, many cases of turbulence, or 4 bodies in a gravitational field. Leaving "physics" is trivial, it occurs whenever you take any of the current toy models and add one layer of reality to them. The whole edifice of formal science is a little like children's block toys.
- ceejayoz 3y agoI don't think that's what they meant by "outside of physics".
- ncallaway 3y ago> Almost everything is "outside of physics", No, it's not. Many things are outside of "known" physics, sure. But I didn't say "outside of known physics". I said "outside of physics". When I say "outside of physics" I mean "meta-physical", as in, processes that are not part of physical interactions of this world. Things that, if you somehow had Maxwell's demon tracking every single quark, lepton, and boson, even then you still wouldn't be able to account for. It's a discussion of what is _theoretically knowable_, not a discussion of what we currently do know.
- mjburgess 3y agoI do not think most things are "theoretically knowable", since knowledge is comprised of finite concepts conjoined in finite ways; and most of reality is uncomputable. You cannot know the state of the climate, even in principle. This is what the commenter was alluding to when they said, > there is some information-theoretic barrier for us to understand So the commenter can both maintain there are theoretical barriers to the possibility of all kinds of knowledge, which is outside of "knowable physics" without having any sort of dualistic view that this unknownable stuff is immaterial. So to be "outside of physics" is not coextensive with being "immaterial". You might have meant that, but it is this very conflation which has to be undone to understand OP's point
- calf 3y agoBut is general uncomputability the OP's argument? They were just saying they had a gut feeling there is some "information-theoretic barrier" preventing AGI construction. Yet we can understand a lot about Earth's weather, and even do things to affect the weather, despite climate systems being uncomputable, strictly speaking.