3 ms·

> Evolution created intelligence and consciousness This is not provable, it an assumption. Religious people (which account for a large percent the population)

by umvi 2y ago

> Evolution created intelligence and consciousness This is not provable, it an assumption. Religious people (which account for a large percent the population) claim intelligence and/or consciousness stem from a "spirit" which existed before birth and will continue to exist after death. Also unprovable, by the way. I think your foundational assertion would have to be rephrased as "Assuming things like God/spirits don't exist, AGI must be possible because we are AGI agents" in order to be true

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
There's of course a wide spectrum of religious thought, so I can't claim to cover everyone. But most religious people would still acknowledge that animals can think, which means either that animals have some kind of soul (in which case why can't a robot have a soul?) or that being ensoulled isn't required to think.
- umvi 2y ago
  > in which case why can't a robot have a soul It's not a question of whether a robot can have a soul, it's a question of how to a) procure a soul and b) bind said soul to a robot both of which seem impossible given or current knowledge
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
What relevance is the percentage of religious individuals? Religion is evidently not relevant in any case. What ChatGPT already does today religious individuals 50 years ago would have near unanimously declared behavior only a "soul" can do.
- umvi 2y ago
  > What relevance is the percentage of religious individuals? Only that OP asserted as fact something that is disputed as fact by a large percentage of the population. > Religion is evidently not relevant in any case. I think it's relevant. I would venture to say proving AGI is possible is tantamount to proving God doesn't exist (or rather, proving God is not needed in the formation of an intelligent being) > What ChatGPT already does today religious individuals 50 years ago would have near unanimously declared behavior only a "soul" can do Some religious people, maybe. But that sort of blanket statement is made all the time "[Religious people] claimed X was impossible, but science proved them wrong!"

by umvi 2y ago

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

There's of course a wide spectrum of religious thought, so I can't claim to cover everyone. But most religious people would still acknowledge that animals can think, which means either that animals have some kind of soul (in which case why can't a robot have a soul?) or that being ensoulled isn't required to think.

umvi 2y ago
> in which case why can't a robot have a soul It's not a question of whether a robot can have a soul, it's a question of how to a) procure a soul and b) bind said soul to a robot both of which seem impossible given or current knowledge

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago

What relevance is the percentage of religious individuals? Religion is evidently not relevant in any case. What ChatGPT already does today religious individuals 50 years ago would have near unanimously declared behavior only a "soul" can do.

umvi 2y ago
> What relevance is the percentage of religious individuals? Only that OP asserted as fact something that is disputed as fact by a large percentage of the population. > Religion is evidently not relevant in any case. I think it's relevant. I would venture to say proving AGI is possible is tantamount to proving God doesn't exist (or rather, proving God is not needed in the formation of an intelligent being) > What ChatGPT already does today religious individuals 50 years ago would have near unanimously declared behavior only a "soul" can do Some religious people, maybe. But that sort of blanket statement is made all the time "[Religious people] claimed X was impossible, but science proved them wrong!"