3 ms·

> 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

> 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? Problem is, even granted the above, that's not enough of an argument that AGI is only a matter of mechanism. Take the analogy with pain. We've discovered the mechanism for pain. That it's e.g. some stimulus applied to skin which sets of nerve signals that register in the brain. To then say that the experience of pain is the same as the physical mechanism we've discovered still misses a key step: what does the experience of pain inhere to, and is that the same subject as that for the mechanism of pain? Comparing AGI and human intelligence has the same problem. We don't know exactly what is intelligent in either case, let alone whether the two are comparable. So it's not a question of intelligence per se, but of that which is intelligent. Maybe AGI, the way we are thinking and talking about it, is unavoidably tangled with having to grapple with [self-]consciousness.

ncallaway 3y ago
Do you think the self-consciousness that we possess is the result of physical processes going on in our brain and body, or do you think something outside of physics is required? If I made a careful atom by atom (or quark/lepton/boson) copy of every atom in your brain and body in a different location, would that new copy be intelligent? If our intelligence is purely a result of physical processes, then why do you suppose it would be impossible for us (or more advanced future beings), to construct a machine which can also follow those processes? If you think your intelligence is not reducible to purely physical processes, then… what is this meta-physical thing that is required for intelligence? Does it interact with anything other than intelligence, or is it only involved with intelligence? Is there any reason or evidence we should assume this meta-physical intelligence?
- dsubburam 3y ago
  > ..., or do you think something outside of physics is required? I am most sympathetic to the argument that self-consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that is not easily modeled, but is nevertheless derived from physics. In the context of my previous comment, it is this emergent phenomenon that is deemed "intelligent". > If I made a careful atom by atom (or quark/lepton/boson) copy of every atom in your brain and body in a different location, would that new copy be intelligent? Yes. > If our intelligence is purely a result of physical processes, then why do you suppose it would be impossible for us (or more advanced future beings), to construct a machine which can also follow those processes? I think it is possible, and not too far off to boot. We might get (maybe we already have gotten) the intelligence without the particular emergent phenomenon of self-consciousness that is of the kind humans possess, at least not at first. Some of us will call that AGI, some of us won't. Because we are still working out the terminology and taxonomy. Discussions like these in HN help. Maybe we'll get the emergent phenomenon soon thereafter. If it is in fact intractable to model (and therefore to train for directly), it may happen unpredictably. Exciting times.

ncallaway 3y ago

Do you think the self-consciousness that we possess is the result of physical processes going on in our brain and body, or do you think something outside of physics is required? If I made a careful atom by atom (or quark/lepton/boson) copy of every atom in your brain and body in a different location, would that new copy be intelligent? If our intelligence is purely a result of physical processes, then why do you suppose it would be impossible for us (or more advanced future beings), to construct a machine which can also follow those processes? If you think your intelligence is not reducible to purely physical processes, then… what is this meta-physical thing that is required for intelligence? Does it interact with anything other than intelligence, or is it only involved with intelligence? Is there any reason or evidence we should assume this meta-physical intelligence?

dsubburam 3y ago
> ..., or do you think something outside of physics is required? I am most sympathetic to the argument that self-consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that is not easily modeled, but is nevertheless derived from physics. In the context of my previous comment, it is this emergent phenomenon that is deemed "intelligent". > If I made a careful atom by atom (or quark/lepton/boson) copy of every atom in your brain and body in a different location, would that new copy be intelligent? Yes. > If our intelligence is purely a result of physical processes, then why do you suppose it would be impossible for us (or more advanced future beings), to construct a machine which can also follow those processes? I think it is possible, and not too far off to boot. We might get (maybe we already have gotten) the intelligence without the particular emergent phenomenon of self-consciousness that is of the kind humans possess, at least not at first. Some of us will call that AGI, some of us won't. Because we are still working out the terminology and taxonomy. Discussions like these in HN help. Maybe we'll get the emergent phenomenon soon thereafter. If it is in fact intractable to model (and therefore to train for directly), it may happen unpredictably. Exciting times.