J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>
> On Dec 19, 2008, at 12:13 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
>> The answer to this is that you can implement it in software. But you
won't do that because the result is not an AGI, but an actor with a
script. I actually started AGI believing that software would do it. When
I got into the details of the issue of qualia (their role and origins) I
found that software alone would not do the trick.
>
>
> Nonsense, an algorithmic system is describable entirely based on
input and output without any regard for its internal structure. If two
blackbox systems produce identical output based on identical input, then
they are mathematically equivalent in every meaningful sense even if
they have radically different internal construction.
>
*I'm not clear how you came to the conclusion that I was discussing an
'algorithmic system'. *
> You say "actor with a script" as if that means something important,
ignoring that every process in our universe is necessarily equivalent to
an "actor with a script". Your magical EM chip is, in fact, "an actor
with a script".
>
*If you mean that the laws of nature persist and govern the regularities
around us and the nature of ourselves. Fine! We are all 'actors' in that
sense.
*
*What I meant specifically is that we know already the outcome. It's the
script. WE wrote it and gave it to our AGI. Consider my benchmark
behaviour "the artificial scientist". What 'algorithmic script' dictates
the behaviour that will result in scientific encounter with the
intrinsically a-priori unknown? If you can write that script you must
know the outcome already or be willing to predefine the nature of all
novelty!
*
>
>> The simplest way to get to the position I inhabit is to consider
that the electromagnetic field has access to more information (about the
world outside the agent) than that available through peripheral nerve
signaling. It's the additional information that is thrown away with a
model of the electromagnetic field.
>
>
> This does not even make sense. Either the software model captures
the measurable properties of the EM field or it does not, but either way
it does not support your proposal. In the former case, the external
input and dynamic *must* be measurable and therefore can be reflected in
the software model, and in the latter case it is nothing more than
handwaving about something you are asserting exists in the complete
absence of material evidence. I'm having a hard time accepting that
there is something you can specify and measure that magically has no
useful software description. That is not even supposed to be possible
as a kind of basic mathematical theorem thing.
>
>
> I mean, you are asserting that some very specific inputs to the
system are not being modeled, and if you know this then you can very
easily add them to the software-modeled system. You have not explained
why this is not possible, merely asserted it.
>
> J. Andrew Rogers
>
>
>
*My position is that the EM field as it exists, literally, in situ in
the brain, is enacting exactly a process of 'input'. To us it appears
as, for example, 'visual perception' (that you are using to read this).
For the same reason you can't model your inputs - because you don't
known them - you can't model the EM field.
Yes this looks like an assertion BUT:
a) I have preliminary physiological evidence that the EM fields are
directly coupled to the distant natural world. It comes from studies of
visual acuity in humans. I can detail it if you like.
b) <DISTANT WORLD> _is to_: <RETINAL IMPACT> is MANY:ONE. This is an
inverse problem and unsolvable in principle. Yet humans solve it.
Therefore vision, to a human, cannot be an inverse problem - it can't
be! So we must have extra data. There are only 2 places to get it: (i)
SENSORY I/O and (ii) SPACE. We already use (i) so SPACE it is. A
Sherlock Holmes outcome.
c) The human brain goes to extravagant lengths (and lots of energy
expenditure) to micro-manipulate an incredibly complex field pattern in
space. That field pattern is gone in any model of it.
d) 75 years of computer-based-AGI failure - has sent me a message that
no amount of hubris on my part can overcome. As a scientist I must be
informed by empirical outcomes, not dogma or wishful thinking.
Apart from that: Over XMAS I am finishing the proposal for an
experiment to verify the EM field spatial link. I will be getting money
from NICTA. I hope! If anyone out there has US$300K to spare and wants
some science excitement let me know! I'll have the results in a couple
of years.
A human scientist (my benchmark, testable behaviour) is a 'black box'
with internal states somehow able to resonate (cohere) accurately with
the distant and novel natural world, /not the inputs/. The inputs are
redundantly related to the distant natural world on multiple levels.
**On balance - I go with the brain as my exemplar. There seems to be
sufficient available evidence to doubt **that 'cognition is
computation'. So....let's let the real ** **world be the judge of **who
is the holder of 'nonsense' beliefs in respect of abstract computation
and AGI. **. Time will tell. The good thing is that even if I fail, good
science gets done in an area long overdue for it.
cheers
colin hales
*
-------------------------------------------
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=123753653-47f84b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
