[freediver]

The chain of reasoning that everything observable in nature is replicable by humans would also imply us being able to replicate creation of a living cell from non living material and then endow that organism with consciousness.

Further more it would also imply us being able to replicate birth of stars, black holes, and "the big bang" itself.

I am not qualified enough to speak if there is anything fundamentally impossible with all of these, but that would basically make human race "God".

[ascar]

> us being able to replicate creation of a living cell from non living material and then endow that organism with consciousness.

Afaik we are very close to artificially creating living cells. This is one recent example [1]. The consciousness part is similar to AGI.

> Further more it would also imply us being able to replicate birth of stars, black holes, and "the big bang" itself.

Some things might be a logistical challenge rather than one of knowledge. Fusion energy attempts to replicate the way stars produce energy and we already managed to replicate the effect, we are just (many years) shy of maintaining it to produce positive energy.

But you might be right and some things are impossible to replicate. I'm much more inclined to believe we can't replicate the big bang than general intelligence as mother nature replicates general intelligence millions of times each day. And by now we started to have a discussion about believes rather than knowledge, which is a much more healthy way to put it, as we indeed don't know.

[1] https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/septem...

[freediver]

> Afaik we are very close to artificially creating living cells. This is one recent example [1].

I beg to differ. It may look impressive on the surface, just like GPT-3 looks impressive on the surface, but is far from the real thing. It is just another extension of the ladder to the Moon.

The effort described in the article is nowhere near a living cell. It lacks protein building and DNA/RNA mechanisms. They basically describe a group of nanomotors.

I can recommend watching James Tour on this very topic [1] and Stephen Meyer on the related topic of intelligent design [2]. Those two lectures were eye-opening for me learning more about this field. Note: both of them are self-confessed theist scientists which to me did not represent a problem (my viewes are agnostic, and it only made it more interesting as you rarely get to hear different views about these matters than pop-sci).

> The consciousness part is similar to AGI.

It is not clear what you mean by that. One thing is to build computer code and then have it manifest 'intelligence'. Whole another thing is doing same with organic matter that can not be 'programmed', even if we knew how to do it (let alone there is no evidence that 'programming' is responsible for consciousness at all to begin with).

This is also known as 'hard problem of consciousness' and David Chalmers is considered one of the leading experts in the field [3]. Basically smartest scientists in the world are clueless about this and do not know even where to begin, in many ways similar to AGI.

> Some things might be a logistical challenge rather than one of knowledge. Fusion energy attempts to replicate the way stars produce energy and we already managed to replicate the effect, we are just (many years) shy of maintaining it to produce positive energy.

I can see why one can have this position where it seems like we are making progress in everything we talked about, but that is the main punchline of the ladder to the Moon analogy. Indeed it is imaginable, and indeed every step makes us closer. But it does not mean we will ever reach it.

I agree with you that the discussion ultimately boils down to direction and strength of one's beliefs.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPg

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pk9oDrpf6k

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5DfnIjZPGw