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.
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.
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.)
