[benl]

If you strip out the AGI hype then this just sounds like OpenAI is now moving to monetizing their tech. This makes sense for them but probably not for the philanthropists who originally backed them.

Sadly for them, AGI is metaphysically impossible - this will be realized eventually but a lot of waste and possibly harm will happen first.

We are not just super sophisticated machines, so the fact that we can think doesn’t tell us anything about what’s possible for machines. But philosophy does - and it tells us you can’t get mind from matter, no matter what configuration you put it in.

[malux85]

I'm a believer that we are super sophisticated molecular machines, embodied in matter.

Can you provide some material that supports your claim that AGI is metaphysically impossible - I always like hearing from people with views opposite to myself.

[stevenhuang]

I'm skeptical his claims are substantive. As with all things philosophy there are competing and supporting theories, and with this age-old question of AGI I doubt the field is as conclusive on the matter as he believes.

[benl]

I used to be a believer of the theory that we are super sophisticated machines. When I read some of the philosophy on the subject I changed my mind. I now believe there must be some immaterial component to our minds.

There’s a lot to read out there on this subject, but I found expositions of the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas to be the clearest and most convincing for me. Lots of different books and articles exist on them both - pick one that sounds like it suits your style of understanding.

[malux85]

> I used to be a believer of the theory that we are super sophisticated machines. When I read some of the philosophy on the subject I changed my mind.

What philosophy? Be specific

> I now believe there must be some immaterial component to our minds.

What specific points or ideas made you believe that?

> There’s a lot to read out there on this subject

So provide some examples, be as specific as possible

> but I found expositions of the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas to be the clearest and most convincing for me

These two wrote a lot on many subjects, can you be specific on the points that convinced you that we are not super sophisticated machines. Don't vaguely point at a couple of authors, we are talking about a very specific idea.

> Lots of different books and articles exist on them both - pick one that sounds like it suits your style of understanding.

If there's lots then cite some examples, or better yet, rather than vaguely pointing at a book, (which is only marginally more useful than vaguely pointing at an author) let's discuss the specific ideas exactly.

[benl]

I found “Aristotle for Everybody” by Mortimer J. Adler to be really great. The topic of the immateriality of the intellect is covered in the last few chapters, but the rest of it is great stuff too.

[emanuensis]

Sounds like @benl has been afflicted with the "Cartesian wound". Such dualistic thinking and ideas like free will are ~hard for us to work through. But perhaps the more important, and immediately tractable, question @benl brings up is what our approach should be? Should we make an AGI or better IA, Intelligence Augmentation?

~hard

Daniel Dennett

From Bacteria to Bach and Back

[benl]

You might be more familiar with the field than me, but my understanding is that’s Dennett position is not well-thought-of in the fields of philosophy of mind and metaphysics. At the very least there are very good cases made that unpick his position very carefully. They’re not all Cartesian views - I grasp the Aristotelian views best myself.

[emanuensis]

Thanks, i will keep studying. In the mean time my actions will veer more towards IA than AI

[noir_lord]

> But philosophy does - and it tells us you can’t get mind from matter, no matter what configuration you put it in.

Curious - do you think humans have mind? because if so we are very much matter and if not well that's an interesting thought as well.

[benl]

That’s right - we have minds therefore we must be more than just matter.

I used to think the opposite, but reading the philosophy on the subject changed my mind. There are a lot of different takes on the topic, but what most added up for me was the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas. There are many great expositions of their work out there.

[tim333]

AGI in the sense of robots that can do the jobs people can, design better robots and so on would be a game changer in itself. You can leave to philosophers to argue if they have true feelings and that.

[mathgenius]

But, not even matter is "very much matter".

I'm a quantum maximalist: the brain is just the antennae, receiving and broadcasting. Attention itself cuts (slices) through the quantum soup, and as a result, these mind-forms appear.

[Quarrelsome]

A framing: can we make a rock think?

I don't know the answer but that some people think they do upsets me. I definitely think we should try but right now mostly what we do is make a rock DO so I'm not seeing the leap yet.

[mitchellgoffpc]

I would ask for evidence to support your claim, but I think Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword probably applies in this case.

[carapace]

Well, machine is a name for a stance of analysis, there are no machines in the real world (which is not to say that there no are mechanical linkages) only in our minds.

FWIW, consciousness has no properties and so cannot be studied scientifically.

However, consciousness can be explored experientially, i.e. two conscious beings can merge and experience self as one being. (See Charles Tart's experiment with mutual hypnosis.)

[benl]

Yes, I used to hold that view too. But actually it turns out that the null hypothesis is that mind is at least partly immaterial, because all attempts to demonstrate the opposite philosophically are fraught with difficulty. I’ve found that the thought of Aristotle and Aquinas, when explained by modern philosophers, best explains to me why that’s the case.

[feanaro]

> ... because all attempts to demonstrate the opposite philosophically are fraught with difficulty.

Can you give at least a rough sketch or gist of the argument you are referring to?

[benl]

I’ll try because you asked me to, but i think I’ll do a bad job. You’ll get a much better understanding by reading on the topics of philosophy of mind and metaphysics. Here goes, though:

1. Purely immaterial things exist. Think of mathematics or the laws of logic or physics - these things exist as ideas or concepts, not arrangements of matter.

2. Some abstract concepts cannot be embodied in matter at all. For example, you can make a shoe, you can draw a shoe, but you can’t draw shoe-ness. You can understand and reason about what makes something a shoe in the abstract, but you can only make or draw an individual shoe.

3) the mind contains these purely immaterial things when we think about and reason about them.

4) If we can use the abstract concepts, but the abstract concepts can’t be embodied in matter, then the mind must be at least partly immaterial in order for the concepts to be in our mind.

I hope that helps a but please don’t rely on my exposition of the case - a real philosopher would do it justice.