---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rob Freeman <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Steel-manning 101 To: AGI <[email protected]>
I'm not sure there is any point in critiquing steel-man Colin. If you don't agree, it's not steel-man. The idea is to stop talking about yourself, and try to understand other points of view. I might just comment my last message originally ended with the following words, which I edited off as overly negative (though true!): "In my experience no-one ever accepts any restatement of their position. So steel-man never applies! But that doesn't mean that attempting it is not a good exercise for yourself." C: It's the attempt that counts! As far as my position, I think the answer is a chaos, or a complex system element to meaningful patterns. And that's why they elude us. Chaos is also embodied. C: OK let's keep it simple and focus on this. How does the following statement sit with you as a statement of part of your perspective on creating an artificial brain: "Brain tissue is the only thing current empirically known to deliver natural general intelligence. Brains are situated in a body. The body is situated in a host environment. However natural brains deliver intelligence in this context, it is to be expected that an artificial brain, in the first instance (and until it is empirically proved optional) must at least replicate this context (embodied, embedded, situated like a natural brain). Additionally, there is chaotic physics measureable in the natural brain when it is operating normally in an awake, alert subject. Therefore, if one is to create an artificial general intelligence, then at least initially, the artificial brain should be based on brain tissue physics and if it is delivering intelligence, chaotic behaviour of a similar kind should be observed in it, and when the chaotic behaviour changes or ceases, intelligent behaviour should be observed degraded or changed or lost in a measurable way. Chaos is thereby prima facie, necessary in an artificial brain, but on its own, insufficient. It is the natural brain physics-basis of the chaos that has to be conserved until empirically proved optional." Is this statement clashing with you in any way? What does it get wrong/right? Colin ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tafcd787c73d24a40-Mf9719023d58df258f18322c6 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
