5 ms·

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 in

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.
  - jprete 3y ago
    I think a mechanistic universe is not necessarily a computation, so purely physical intelligence is also not necessarily a computation. But I'm not prepared at the moment to go dig up the alternatives to "computation" and "metaphysical process", or to figure out how a deterministic (or even stochastic) process could be uncomputable.
    - ncallaway 3y ago
      > so purely physical intelligence is also not necessarily a computation. We're going to get into semantics pretty quickly, but I would argue that at least purely physical intelligence is a procedure that is capable of being run on a machine that exists in our universe. I would also argue that, such a machine is _at least_ turing complete (since I would think a general intelligence should be capable of emulating a turing machine in the same way that humans are able to do so). I would happily accept that it's possible that being turing complete is a necessary, *but not sufficient* condition for intelligence. That is, I could see a world where intelligence requires some form of hyper-turing machine, that is able to solve some non-turing computable problems. However, I would argue that even if intelligence does require non-turing computable functions, there exists *a* machine which can perform those procedures (that is, we exist). Thus, in this hypothetical universe where intelligence is non-turing computable, we would then have an existence proof for a hyper-turing machine which can compute non-turing computable results. In this universe, then, I'd argue that anything that can be produced by this "hyper-turing machine", _is_ "physically computable", even if not "turing-computable". Ultimately, if we accept the premise of a mechanistic universe, I think humans are an existence proof of a machine capable of producing intelligence. Then, I think it follows that it *cannot* be physically impossible to create a machine capable of producing intelligence. Whether we call that machine a "computer", though, I don't have a strong preference.
  - lanstin 3y ago
    Neither humans nor any physical device is Turing complete; only bounded computations can we perform. What do you mean by mechanistic? Mathematical? Deterministic? Non-dual with no unmeasurable causes?

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.
- jprete 3y ago
  I think a mechanistic universe is not necessarily a computation, so purely physical intelligence is also not necessarily a computation. But I'm not prepared at the moment to go dig up the alternatives to "computation" and "metaphysical process", or to figure out how a deterministic (or even stochastic) process could be uncomputable.
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    > so purely physical intelligence is also not necessarily a computation. We're going to get into semantics pretty quickly, but I would argue that at least purely physical intelligence is a procedure that is capable of being run on a machine that exists in our universe. I would also argue that, such a machine is _at least_ turing complete (since I would think a general intelligence should be capable of emulating a turing machine in the same way that humans are able to do so). I would happily accept that it's possible that being turing complete is a necessary, *but not sufficient* condition for intelligence. That is, I could see a world where intelligence requires some form of hyper-turing machine, that is able to solve some non-turing computable problems. However, I would argue that even if intelligence does require non-turing computable functions, there exists *a* machine which can perform those procedures (that is, we exist). Thus, in this hypothetical universe where intelligence is non-turing computable, we would then have an existence proof for a hyper-turing machine which can compute non-turing computable results. In this universe, then, I'd argue that anything that can be produced by this "hyper-turing machine", _is_ "physically computable", even if not "turing-computable". Ultimately, if we accept the premise of a mechanistic universe, I think humans are an existence proof of a machine capable of producing intelligence. Then, I think it follows that it *cannot* be physically impossible to create a machine capable of producing intelligence. Whether we call that machine a "computer", though, I don't have a strong preference.
- lanstin 3y ago
  Neither humans nor any physical device is Turing complete; only bounded computations can we perform. What do you mean by mechanistic? Mathematical? Deterministic? Non-dual with no unmeasurable causes?