Hi Colin,
Are there other forums or email lists associated with some of the other AI
communities you mention? I've looked briefly but in vain ... would appreciate
any helpful pointers.
Thanks,
Terren
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [agi] Advocacy Is no Excuse for Exaggeration
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 12:43 AM
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
| Modify
Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
