[qwertywert_]

> that requires abilities that computers simply do not and cannot have.

You imply brains are more than extremely complex circuitry then? I think everyone actually in tech agrees the gap is really huge right now, Yann LeCun admits machine learning is not enough on its own.

But aren't you really limiting what a "computer" could be by definition? If a computer with huge memory, interconnect between memory, huge number of different neural nets + millions of other logic programs that all communicate perfectly with each other - why could this theoretical "computer" not achieve a human level consciousness? This computer could also have many high throughput sensory inputs streaming in at all times, and ability to interact with the physical world rather than conventional machines sitting in a rack.

Also why argue that it is simply impossible, because if we don't truly understand consciousness in 2022, how can we say we can't implement it when we don't formally know what it is?

I think overestimate human intelligence, we have basic reward functions that are somewhat understood, like most animals, but these reward functions build and get higher and higher level with our complexity. Humans have sex as a major reward function, so why would a current machine in a rack "think" about things in a way that humans do.

[qwertywert_]

Basically what I'm trying to say is how can anyone who believes the brain is purely physical (not spiritual), believe that we just simply cannot achieve human-level intelligence by machine (no matter how complex the machine gets).

I thought most scientists agree that the brain is purely physical, when looking at the building blocks of life and evolution, but maybe i'm wrong.

[mabub24]

> Basically what I'm trying to say is how can anyone who believes the brain is purely physical (not spiritual), believe that we just simply cannot achieve human-level intelligence by machine (no matter how complex the machine gets).

Obviously the brain is physical. But is consciousness? Is consciousness a thing in a physical sense, or an "experience", or something like a collection of powers and abilities? The two poles in the argument aren't between physical machine or religious spiritualism. There are other options, alternative positions that don't rely on Cartesian demons at the wheel, or souls, or even an inside-mental vs. outside-body distinction.

One thing my initial comment was pointing out was that the argument in favour of AGI, and which you're presenting, relies on an assumption: that computational intelligence, what you might describe as the intelligence of machines, is the same as the intelligence of humans. But that is just an assumption when you get down to it based on a particular kind of model of human intelligence. There are certain logical consequences of that assumption, and I've just pointed some out as probable roadblocks to getting to AGI from there. Many of those alternative positions, a lot from philosophy of mind, have raised those exact critical arguments.