ARGH!!! is definitely the right name for this discussion. Please look carefully at my most recent post. It has 4 very different contexts of 'computation' across the two science disciplines (neuroscience and computer science). I think I have accurately distentangled them and allocated them to the correct science categories.
Bottom line: everybody involved in AGI at the moment is designing a computer (f right). Nor are they building a computer (f left). They are computing abstract models of the brain on existing computers (e right), thinking they are building an artificial brain (e left) when they are not. (e left) has chips with brain physics/causality on them and is 100% orphaned out of existence. (e) left and right have been assumed indentities and (e) left is abandoned, when the very science that tests/proves the equivalence involves both. Do you see the knot that's been created? Colin On Sun., 30 Jun. 2019, 12:16 pm Mike Archbold, <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we can safely say that 1) much of the contention is due to how one > defines a computer and 2) the brain is definitely not a digital computer. > > > > On Friday, June 28, 2019, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu., 27 Jun. 2019, 5:47 am Mike Archbold, <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Probably what most people mean by computer is roughly the usual common >>> sense digital or perhaps quantum computer. There are also theoretical >>> hypercomputers. I guess I would define computer simply as something >>> that follows the usual form: >>> >>> input -- function -- output >>> >>> Input and output might be feedback oriented -- the output is part of >>> the input. Or, there may be no output. Maybe a computer just inputs >>> and makes a computation. I think the only hard requirement is that >>> there is some kind of function happening based upon the input and >>> there will almost certainly be output. >>> >>> So, I my opinion is a brain qualifies as a computer -- under the >>> looser definition. >>> >>> Mike A >>> >>> _------- >> >> >> Ok. Here's the problem. This is science. With respect, opinion is >> irrelevant. I'm trying to get the science that proves it sorted out in a >> manner that computer science understands. Perhaps then computer science may >> then see the problem better and understand it is in its interest to get the >> science done properly. >> >> Perhaps see the dialog with Matt, where the narrative seems to be taking >> shape. >> >> Cheers >> Colin >> >> >> >> *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* >> / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + >> participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery >> options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink >> <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-Md58df30054db6a8b4e108775> >> > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery > options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-Mda2c37794e1007c0ca73d53c> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M96ba73326bcb1b4adda428b7 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
