Ask HN: How many AGI researchers have/are studying philosophy seriously?
Just asking. Philosophy by itself just seems to be THE important thing to study and maybe research on the road to creating an understanding artificial mind. And "deep learning", "free energy principle"... were these produced with help of theories with philosophical insight, systematically?
Seriously. 'Existential' (epistemological+influential) power of AGI by definition (sorry, no definition, read it like "in my opinion") encompasses "all of science" or at least some "analog" of science (working somewhat differently than "human science"), in which there will be analogs of all human sciences nonetheless. I want to put forth my opinion that it's foolish to search for some numb mathematical formalism, one that isn't informed by philosophical theories, in hopes that it will generate all of science or comparable. That's too primitive. Remember that scientists from different fields have different cognitive styles, different sciences have different philosophy, methodology, paradigms, the "style of mental content". AGI by definition (or in my opinion) will present a unified understanding of all of them from a "sufficiently philosophically powerful/abstract" philosophical foundation. So why not work on that theory?
Seriously. 'Existential' (epistemological+influential) power of AGI by definition (sorry, no definition, read it like "in my opinion") encompasses "all of science" or at least some "analog" of science (working somewhat differently than "human science"), in which there will be analogs of all human sciences nonetheless. I want to put forth my opinion that it's foolish to search for some numb mathematical formalism, one that isn't informed by philosophical theories, in hopes that it will generate all of science or comparable. That's too primitive. Remember that scientists from different fields have different cognitive styles, different sciences have different philosophy, methodology, paradigms, the "style of mental content". AGI by definition (or in my opinion) will present a unified understanding of all of them from a "sufficiently philosophically powerful/abstract" philosophical foundation. So why not work on that theory?