Hi Matt,
... The Gamez paper situation is now...erm...resolved. You are right:
the paper doesn't argue that solving consciousness is necessary for AGI.
What has happened recently is a subtle shift - those involved simple
fail to make claims about the consciousness or otherwise of the
machines! This does not entail that they are not actually working on it.
They are just being cautious...Also, you correctly observe that solving
AGI on a purely computational basis is not prohibited by the workers
involved in the GAMEZ paper.. indeed most of their work assumes it!... I
don't have a problem with this...However...'attributing' consciousness
to it based on its behavior is probably about as unscientific as it
gets. That outcome betrays no understanding whatever of consciousness,
its mechanism or its role....and merely assumes COMP is true and creates
an agreement based on ignorance. This is fatally flawed non-science.
[BTW: We need an objective test (I have one - I am waiting for it to get
published...). I'm going to try and see where it's at in that process.
If my test is acceptable then I predict all COMP entrants will fail, but
I'll accept whatever happens... - and external behaviour is decisive.
Bear with me a while till I get it sorted.]
I am still getting to know the folks [EMAIL PROTECTED] And the group may be
diverse, as you say ... but if they are all COMP, then that diversity is
like a group dedicated to an unresolved argument over the colour of a
fish's bicycle. If we can attract the attention of the likes of those in
the GAMEZ paper... and others such as Hynna and Boahen at Stanford, who
have an unusual hardware neural architecture...(Hynna, K. M. and Boahen,
K. 'Thermodynamically equivalent silicon models of voltage-dependent ion
channels', /Neural Computation/ vol. 19, no. 2, 2007. 327-350.)...and
others ... then things will be diverse and authoritative. In particular,
those who have recently essentially squashed the computational theories
of mind from a neuroscience perspective- the 'integrative neuroscientists':
Poznanski, R. R., Biophysical neural networks : foundations of
integrative neuroscience, Mary Ann Liebert, Larchmont, NY, 2001, pp.
viii, 503 p.
Pomerantz, J. R., Topics in integrative neuroscience : from cells to
cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK ; New York, 2008,
pp. xix, 427 p.
Gordon, E., Ed. (2000). Integrative neuroscience : bringing together
biological, psychological and clinical models of the human brain.
Amsterdam, Harwood Academic.
The only working, known model of general intelligence is the human. If
we base AGI on anything that fails to account scientifically and
completely for /all/ aspects of human cognition, including
consciousness, then we open ourselves to critical inferiority... and the
rest of science will simply find the group an irrelevant cultish
backwater. Strategically the group would do well to make choices that
attract the attention of the 'machine consciousness' crowd - they are
directly linked to neuroscience via cog sci. The crowd that runs with
JETAI (journal of theoretical and experimental artificial intelligence)
is also another relevant one. It'd be nice if those people also saw the
AGI journal as a viable repository for their output. I for one will try
and help in that regard. Time will tell I suppose.
cheers,
colin hales
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- On Mon, 10/13/08, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the wider world of science it is the current state of play that the
theoretical basis for real AGI is an open and multi-disciplinary
question. A forum that purports to be invested in achievement of real
AGI as a target, one would expect that forum to a multidisciplianry
approach on many fronts, all competing scientifically for access to
real AGI.
I think this group is pretty diverse. No two people here can agree on how to
build AGI.
Gamez, D. 'Progress in machine consciousness', Consciousness and
Cognition vol. 17, no. 3, 2008. 887-910.
$31.50 from Science Direct. I could not find a free version. I don't understand
why an author would not at least post their published papers on their personal
website. It greatly increases the chance that their paper is cited. I
understand some publications require you to give up your copyright including
your right to post your own paper. I refuse to publish with them.
(I don't know the copyright policy for Science Direct, but they are really milking the
"publish or perish" mentality of academia. Apparently you pay to publish with
them, and then they sell your paper).
In any case, I understand you have a pending paper on machine consciousness.
Perhaps you could make it available. I don't believe that consciousness is
relevant to intelligence, but that the appearance of consciousness is. Perhaps
you can refute my position.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
