your questions are based on assuming aspects of your philosophy are true
I don't think so. At the moment we are operating in a very simple, almost crude, framework: there's reality, there are models, we can detect some mismatches between the reality and the models. Isn't falsification one of the favourite Popperian ideas?
Are you interested in understanding a different perspective
I am asking you questions, am I not? And offering you -- what do you call them? ah -- critical arguments.
Popperians say scientific ideas should be (empirically) falsifiable. Philosophy isn't empirically falsifiable, it's addressed by critical arguments.
I let you take substantial control over conversation flow. You took it here – you overestimated your knowledge of Popper and were totally wrong. You do not seem to have learned from this error.
You didn't answer my question about your interest, and you seem totally lost as to what we disagree about. You're still, in response to "your questions are based on assuming aspects of your philosophy are true&quo...
Why expect AGIs to be better at thinking than human beings? Is there some argument that human thinking problems are primarily due to hardware constraints? Has anyone here put much thought into parenting/educating AGIs?