[aetherson]

If you want to argue for a fundamentally non-material mind (ie, that human cognition happens in a physically impossible, spiritual plane), then cool. Though you might want to give some consideration to how much it seems like physical processes on the brain can demonstrably affect cognition.

If you aren't arguing for a non-materialist position, then the distinction between "artificial" and human intelligence isn't meaningful. A powerful enough computer could simulate the material processes in your brain. If as the OP claims it is mathematically impossible for a computer to generate intelligence, no matter how powerful that computer, then it is impossible for your brain to do so (via material processes).

[DragonStrength]

There's no reason to assume our current pursuit is not a dead end for any number of reasons we do not yet understand. There is a lot of faith we are capturing the same thing based on perceptions, which have a lot to do with the individual observer. It seems very important to some folks that our natural process is a mirror of what our technology does. The same result does not mean it is the same process or anything other than a mirage -- though one that may trick a lot of us.

Every generation tries to map its most complex technology onto its understanding of nature. "AGI" has a specific meaning today, but if you want it to mean atheism versus theism or whatever materialist argument, you're far outside of science and technology. Like our fathers of the Enlightenment with their watchmaker god. The idea there is some way for humans to break free of nature seems like a religious belief to me, but whether you agree or not, certainly there is room for doubting that faith, since we're outside the realm of what science can explore.

[aetherson]

"Current LLMs are not going to get to AGI" is a different and much weaker claim than "AGI is mathematically impossible."

[DragonStrength]

I was responding to the claim that an observer bound by a system may understand and replicate all phenomenon within that system. It's quite a bold claim which has already exited the bounds of science, IMHO. That you're using the language of religion and philosophy is the point.

[aetherson]

Nope, try again. "You can't possibly learn enough about a system to simulate it" is still a different and weaker claim than "It is mathematically impossible to compute this thing that is being computed."

But also: if general intelligence were computable, but it was not possible to learn how to make the computer that can compute it, then you've disproved evolution.

[DragonStrength]

You're arguing with the article not me. I replied to

> How is your brain doing it then?

Do you have an answer? What indication do we have that any AGI we would create would have to follow the same process to achieve the result? Can humans recreate all phenomenon observed in the universe? You're arguing yes in all of these then? I'd love to read more of that argument. I don't care about this proof though. I don't think I've indicated I think AGI is impossible. I care far more about why someone would be convinced it must be possible for humans to recreate in the exact same manner as the brain, which this commenter and you seem to think. I know humans have not shown we can fully model our observations cohesively.

> But also: if general intelligence were computable, but it was not possible to learn how to make the computer that can compute it, then you've disproved evolution.

record scratch What? Did I agree to all of these premises? Do you have some backing for the three or four assumptions you've made in this sentence? You still need to show humans not only could be but are capable of replicating the system. I am asking you for some argument out there that says everything we observe in nature humans can replicate in the exact same way it occurs. That's a much stronger statement than such intelligence exists. You can just link a book. I am not sold on one way or the other, but you seem very confident. Is there some argument I can read? To me, our models in physics point to a fragmented and contradictory understanding of our world to get results. But yes, results are results, but that doesn't mean we are doing anything but modeling -- but can we model everything? Is that the implication of evolution?

We seem to be wandering into capital-S Science vs. science, and I'm not really into religious discussions here. I would love to understand why you seem to think I'm so dimwitted as to dismiss with an edge, when all of this stems from a glib reply to a glib reply that I am no less convinced is in fact glib and fatuous. (And that original comment was not yours, lest you feel insulted in the same way you have insulted me.)