Hi MP, Two things regarding: On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:30 PM MP via AGI <[email protected]> wrote:
> My position: > > Who we are is nothing more than a few billion neurons in a calcium > enclosure and an annoyingly inefficient vehicle. > > So our intelligence, perceptions, actions, memories, and so on and so > forth do indeed exist. I don’t see any reason why we can’t recreate that in > silicon. > > Why we haven’t so far is another issue. To know human intelligence is to > know ourselves, and we have so far BARELY been able to decipher the brain > of a honeybee. What’s stopping us is from fully understanding the human > brain and the relationship between neurological structures and intelligent > action. > > > > *"I believe it’s possible, however. If it exists, it can be simulated. "* > What if the answer to this is "Yes it can be simulated, but it's irrelevant". What if the physics responsible for consciousness (the 1st person perspective of being that very brain physics) supplies access to information in a fundamental way that is a) gone if you simulate the physics, along with whatever aspect (say X) of intelligence is critically dependent on it. b) Perfectly naturally part of brain physics and right in front of us, yet .... c) to simulate it, you'd have to know already what went missing when you simulated it. If that is the case, then you can no more simulate consciousness to get aspect X than you can fly by simulating flight physics. Not only that, the belief you can simulate it is actually stopping you from finding out if you can or cannot! *"I don’t see any reason why we can’t recreate that in silicon. " * Me either! We can find out the answer to the question! All we have to do is put the brain physics on the chips instead of the physics of a computer! Recreating it (the brain's signalling physics) in silicon is not 'putting a computer' in that same silicon. Utterly different. In what way does it functionally matter? Exactly. That's the whole point! Well you'll never know if you never do it. Therein lies the rub. This problem is still a problem, not because we can't solve it, but because we don't try! We are currently trapped in the grip of a religion in the form of a delusion that 'computing a model of a thing' is literally 'the thing', without ever actually testing it to be the case or not. To test it you put the brain physics on the chips. We can do this! But we don't. :-) And until we do, we'll still have endless posts like this year after year. cheers colin ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2e5182d7ce6527f7-M3f6479f378ae1a0ea90db608 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
