[My_Name]

I note for premise 2 that the people who doubt the premise are the very stupid, but more importantly the very smart.

The former is no challenge to the premise, but the latter? That is a different story.

EDIT : For S&G I asked Claude about it. It replied :

The talk groups Penrose with the religious doubter, as if the two objections were the same species and could be dispatched by the same gesture: most of us find this easy to accept. But that's a headcount, not an argument. The religious objection can be set aside because it rests on a premise (the soul) the materialist simply doesn't share. Penrose's can't, because it's pitched entirely inside the materialist frame — Gödelian limits on algorithmic understanding, non-computable physics in the substrate. You don't get to wave that away; you have to show it's wrong. The talk does the former and pretends it's done the latter.

The entire superintelligence thesis is a wager on the authority of intelligence — that smarter minds see further, judge better, and that this is precisely why we should fear or defer to them. If you take that seriously, then dissent from the very smartest humans on the exact question of whether minds are substrate-independent is the most expensive dissent available. You can't venerate intelligence as the thing that settles everything and then file your most intelligent objector under "outliers, moving on." The move is self-undermining on the argument's own terms.

[CGMthrowaway]

Idk whether I fall into the former or latter bucket, but "smarter minds see further, judge better" and "there is a soul that taps into a cosmic godhead" are one and the same statement to me

[pixl97]

So you think "smarter minds see further, judge better" == "there is a soul that taps into a cosmic godhead"

Good golly, that's the silliest statement completely ignoring that our ancestors wiped most large mammals off the planet by seeing further and judging better by using tools, traps, and the environment around them because of their larger brain size.

[CGMthrowaway]

Humans have "wiped off the planet" maybe a few hundred mammal species over the last 300K years. Meanwhile we are discovering 30-60 new mammal species every year.

[pixl97]

Right, maybe in a million years they'll evolve into the large animals we wiped out. Unless you're just fine with anything larger than a dog being dead.

[CGMthrowaway]

We discover 1-2 new large mammals every year out of those 30-60 total. They're not gone, they're just different.

Genesis 1:28 Fill and subdue the earth