8 ms·

Hi and thanks for engaging :-) Well, it in fact depends on what intelligence is to your understanding: -If it intelligence = IQ, i.e. the rational ability to

Hi and thanks for engaging :-) Well, it in fact depends on what intelligence is to your understanding: -If it intelligence = IQ, i.e. the rational ability to infer, to detect/recognize and extrapolate patterns etc, then AI is or will soon be more intelligent than us, while we humans are just muddling through or simply lucky having found relativity theory and other innovations just at the convenient moment in time ... So then, AI will soon also stumble over all kind of innovations. None of both will be able to deliberately think beyond what is thinkable at the respective present. - But If intelligence is not only a level of pure rational cognition, but maybe an ability to somehow overcome these frame-limits, then humans obviously exert some sort of abilities that are beyond rational inference. Abilities that algorithms can impossibly reach, as all they can is compute. - Or: intelligence = IQ, but it turns out to be useless in big, pivotal situations where you’re supposed to choose the “best” option — yet the set of possible options isn’t finite, knowable, or probabilistically definable. There’s no way to defer to probability, to optimize, or even to define what “best” means in a stable way. The whole logic of decision collapses — and IQ has nothing left to grab onto. The main point is: neither algorithms nor rationality can point beyond itself. In other words: You cannot think out of the box - thinking IS the box. (maybe have a quick look at my first proof -last chapter before conclusion- - you will find a historical timeline on that IQ-Thing)

like_any_other 1y ago
Let me steal another users alternate phrasing: Since humans and computers are both bound by the same physical laws, why does your proof not apply to humans?
- ICBTheory 1y ago
  Why? 1. Basically because physical laws obviously allow more than algorithmic cognition and problem solving. (And also: I am bound by thermodynamics as my mother in Law is, still i get disarranged by her mere presence while I always have to put laxatives in her wine to counter that) 2. human rationality is equally limited as algorithms. Neither an algorithm nor human logic can find itself a path from Newton to Einsteins SR. Because it doesn't exist. 3. Physical laws - where do they really come from? From nature? From logic? Or from that strange thing we do: experience, generate, pattern, abstract, express — and try to make it communicable? I honestly don’t know. In a nutshell: there obviously is no law that forbids us to innovate - we do this, quite often. There only is a logical boundary, that says that there is no way to derive something out of a something that is not part of itself - no way for thinking to point beyond what is thinkable. Imagine little Albert asking his physics teacher in 1880: "Sir - for how long do I have to stay at high speed in order to look as grown up as my elder brother?" ... i guess "interesting thought" would not have been the probable answer... rather something like "have you been drinking? Stop doing that mental crap - go away, you little moron!"
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    > Why? 1. Basically because physical laws obviously allow more than algorithmic cognition and problem solving. You seem to be laboring under the mistaken idea that "algorithmic" does not encompass everything allowed by physics. But, humoring this idea, then if physical laws allow it, why can this "more than algorithmic" cognition not be done artificially? As you say - we can obviously do it. What magical line is preventing an artificial system from doing the same?
  - nialv7 1y ago
    If by algorithmic you just mean anything that a Turing machine can do, then your theorem is asserting that the Church-Turing thesis isn't true. Why not use that as the title of your paper? That a more fundamental claim.
    - vidarh 1y ago
      The lack of mention of the Church-Turing thesis in both papers suggest he hasn't even considered that angle. But it is the fundamental objection he would need to overcome. There is no reasonable way to write papers claiming to provide proofs in this space without mentioning Church even once, and to me it's a red flag that suggests a lack of understanding of the field.
  - catoc 1y ago
    “Imagine little Albert asking his physics teacher in 1880: "Sir - for how long do I have to stay at high speed in order to look as grown up as my elder brother?"” Is that not the other way around? “…how long do I have to stay at high speed in order for my younger brother to look as grown up as myself?”
    - ben_w 1y ago
      Indeed. One of my other thoughts here on the Relativity example was "That sets the bar high given most humans can't figure out special relativity even with all the explainers for Einstein's work". But I'm so used to AGI being conflated with ASI that it didn't seem worth it compared to the more fundamental errors.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

like_any_other 1y ago

Let me steal another users alternate phrasing: Since humans and computers are both bound by the same physical laws, why does your proof not apply to humans?

ICBTheory 1y ago
Why? 1. Basically because physical laws obviously allow more than algorithmic cognition and problem solving. (And also: I am bound by thermodynamics as my mother in Law is, still i get disarranged by her mere presence while I always have to put laxatives in her wine to counter that) 2. human rationality is equally limited as algorithms. Neither an algorithm nor human logic can find itself a path from Newton to Einsteins SR. Because it doesn't exist. 3. Physical laws - where do they really come from? From nature? From logic? Or from that strange thing we do: experience, generate, pattern, abstract, express — and try to make it communicable? I honestly don’t know. In a nutshell: there obviously is no law that forbids us to innovate - we do this, quite often. There only is a logical boundary, that says that there is no way to derive something out of a something that is not part of itself - no way for thinking to point beyond what is thinkable. Imagine little Albert asking his physics teacher in 1880: "Sir - for how long do I have to stay at high speed in order to look as grown up as my elder brother?" ... i guess "interesting thought" would not have been the probable answer... rather something like "have you been drinking? Stop doing that mental crap - go away, you little moron!"
- like_any_other 1y ago
  > Why? 1. Basically because physical laws obviously allow more than algorithmic cognition and problem solving. You seem to be laboring under the mistaken idea that "algorithmic" does not encompass everything allowed by physics. But, humoring this idea, then if physical laws allow it, why can this "more than algorithmic" cognition not be done artificially? As you say - we can obviously do it. What magical line is preventing an artificial system from doing the same?
- nialv7 1y ago
  If by algorithmic you just mean anything that a Turing machine can do, then your theorem is asserting that the Church-Turing thesis isn't true. Why not use that as the title of your paper? That a more fundamental claim.
  - vidarh 1y ago
    The lack of mention of the Church-Turing thesis in both papers suggest he hasn't even considered that angle. But it is the fundamental objection he would need to overcome. There is no reasonable way to write papers claiming to provide proofs in this space without mentioning Church even once, and to me it's a red flag that suggests a lack of understanding of the field.
- catoc 1y ago
  “Imagine little Albert asking his physics teacher in 1880: "Sir - for how long do I have to stay at high speed in order to look as grown up as my elder brother?"” Is that not the other way around? “…how long do I have to stay at high speed in order for my younger brother to look as grown up as myself?”
  - ben_w 1y ago
    Indeed. One of my other thoughts here on the Relativity example was "That sets the bar high given most humans can't figure out special relativity even with all the explainers for Einstein's work". But I'm so used to AGI being conflated with ASI that it didn't seem worth it compared to the more fundamental errors.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]