An argument for the impossibility of machine intelligence [pdf]
&gt; But we neither know how to engineer the drive that is built into all animate complex
systems, nor do we know how to mimic evolutionary pressure, which we do not under-
stand and cannot model (outside highly artificial conditions such as a Petri dish). In
fact, if we already knew how to emulate evolution, we would in any case not need to
do this in order to create intelligent life, because the complexity level of intelligent life
is lower than that of evolution. This means that emulating intelligence would be much
easier than emulating evolution en bloc.
Chalmers is, therefore, wrong. We cannot engineer the conditions for a spontaneous
evolution of intelligence.<p>this is the thing i&#x27;ve always sort of loved about philosophy. they just kinda make shit up, provide their own definitions that are rooted in a bamboozling by use of flowery language, and then once they&#x27;ve stated all their definitions with their conclusions baked in, they hop, skip and jump down the path which now obviously leads to the conclusion they started with.<p>it&#x27;s kind of like a form of mathematics where they define their own first principles in each argument with the express purpose of trying to build the most beautiful path to their conclusions. it really is a beautiful form of art, like architecture for ideas.