Comment by dr_dshiv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dr_dshiv | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"assuming a physical basis as explanation is prudent" yeah, good luck making physicality relevant for most explanations. My wife asks why I didn't put the laundry away, for instance. "Physics!" I declare triumphantly.

Now, if I put music on and rub her back a bit... Well, ha! There's the magic, my good sir.

Imagine walking into a film studio with the idea of film production based exclusively on the principles of physics. No. Magic and physics are no more opposed than biology and physics. When hidden (psychological?) forces clearly underlie economically valuable phenomena (architecture, music, media, etc) respecting the magic is closer to the truth than reducing it to physics. Physics just isn't the right explanatory level.

If you'd like to learn more about definitions of magic that aren't "phenomena that don't actually exist", I recommend Penelope Gouk's work on music, science and natural magic in the 17th century. It's about the magic involved at the formation of the Royal Society.

> Now, if I put music on and rub her back a bit... Well, ha! There's the magic, my good sir.

Your answer is rather flip.

Also, if you want to redefine "magic" to be nice things that are physically based but can't be summarized in a neat equation, then I also have no desire to argue. It is clear that the person I was responding to meant "magic" in a different way that you seem to be using it.

If you want to think magic is Harry Potter, fine. But it has an intellectual history that can help frame our interpretation of contemporary technology. Recommended reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pico-della-mirandola/

I think there's multiple definitions of magic at play here. One is phenomena that beyond the limits of human understanding. The other, based in the theory of vitalism, is something unexplainable, but also comes with the assumption that these unexplainable things are due some sort of vital force that living things have (often, specifically humans) [1].

When you talk about the magic of forgetting about the laundry, you mean the first kind of magic. When others talk about consiousness being inaccessible to AI, they're talking about the second kind of magic. I don't think it's that hard to imagine an AI that would forget to fold the laundry and not know why. The main problem with a "concious AI", I suspect, is that nobody will actually want one.

[1] I have no idea if viruses or prions are supposed to have vital force, vital theory emerged before most of modern biology and is mostly used today by those who have no understanding of modern biology.

> The main problem with a "concious AI", I suspect, is that nobody will actually want one.

Why do you think that? Can't accept "fake humanness"? or maybe ego(superior) or not relatable

The one thing I wonder if they were truly sentient why would they care/try to serve you

> Now, if I put music on and rub her back a bit... Well, ha! There's the magic, my good sir.

Sure. There's also the magic of feeding my cat, so he stops nagging me, and sits on my lap purring. And just about everyone would agree that's similar, no?

But what about the magic of running "sudo apt update" before "sudo apt install foo"? That's also arguably similar, albeit many orders of magnitude simpler.

physicality n. obsession with physical urges

On the subject, you are making a good point comparing social behavior with mental activity. Just like there is no “magic” in the way people interact with each other, there is no magic in how neurons do the same.

> Just like there is no “magic” in the way people interact with each other, there is no magic in how neurons do the same.

Except I am arguing that there is most definitely magic in human interaction.

that's not the definition of physicality...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com