3 ms·

There are 2 kinds of "science fiction". The first is the kind that doesn't necessarily violate any laws of nature but is nevertheless inconceivable by today's s

There are 2 kinds of "science fiction". The first is the kind that doesn't necessarily violate any laws of nature but is nevertheless inconceivable by today's standards. The second kind clearly violates a physical law of nature and so is extremely unlikely to ever occur. Its easy to accidentally place one from the first category in the second because of a lack of imagination. When I was young, the thought of a communicator with global reach that I could pull out of my pocket, tap and then say the name of who I'd like to be connected to seemed surely to be science fiction. I assumed it to be in the second category as well, because I couldn't conceive of a radio transmitter powerful enough to reach around the world that could fit in my pocket. I completely missed the fact that there might be a global, semi-self-organizing packet switched network involved. Sci-fi became real in my lifetime and it was awesome. Being a strict naturalist (no belief in supernatural "spirits" or "souls" or what have you) I can't see how a hunk of meat that fits in an 11cm box, only takes 20 watts to power, and is replicated in nature by the billions should be fundamentally be un-simulate-able (and then improvable). Its sci-fi because the technical challenge seems insurmountable by today's standards, but I'd place it firmly in the first category, not the second.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago
What makes you think that this "unremarkable" hunk of meat can simulate itself? Btw, I believe in God (look up Godel's proof) and am a strict monist. I also feel Human-level weak AI is possible.
- qzxt 13y ago
  So uhm, mind explaining what the hell Godel's proof has to do with God?
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    Look up Godel's ontological proof before getting all ragey on me. Of course, philistines hardly understand the concept of any proof and end up attacking the conclusion. So the point is usually lost on the intended audience.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  Nothing in particular, but the same nothing in particular that makes me think that it possibly can. I'm just saying that there's nothing in the known laws of nature that make this impossible from a purely physics based standpoint. I'd be much more surprised to encounter a ship that could fly me to Alpha Centauri in 3 days than a super-human machine intelligence.
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    You are forgetting that it is that meat which is doing the building. And physics is subject to the laws of math. If ghat hunk of meat is simple, shouldn't that simplicity stop it from understanding itself.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago

What makes you think that this "unremarkable" hunk of meat can simulate itself? Btw, I believe in God (look up Godel's proof) and am a strict monist. I also feel Human-level weak AI is possible.

qzxt 13y ago
So uhm, mind explaining what the hell Godel's proof has to do with God?
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  Look up Godel's ontological proof before getting all ragey on me. Of course, philistines hardly understand the concept of any proof and end up attacking the conclusion. So the point is usually lost on the intended audience.
noonespecial 13y ago
Nothing in particular, but the same nothing in particular that makes me think that it possibly can. I'm just saying that there's nothing in the known laws of nature that make this impossible from a purely physics based standpoint. I'd be much more surprised to encounter a ship that could fly me to Alpha Centauri in 3 days than a super-human machine intelligence.
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  You are forgetting that it is that meat which is doing the building. And physics is subject to the laws of math. If ghat hunk of meat is simple, shouldn't that simplicity stop it from understanding itself.