On Wed., 3 Jul. 2019, 7:05 am Matt Mahoney, <mattmahone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So if computation is not behind intelligence (based on 65 years of AGI > failure) and you have no idea what is, then what is the basis of your chip > design, and what do you hope to accomplish with it? > This just keeps on happening. I have explicitly said more times than I can remember that the brain is 100% computation. What said is that it is not a 'computer'. The basis of what computation happens in a computer is the physics (causality) of a computer. The computations performed by the brain are performed by brain physics(causality). This entire discussion has been about the assumed equivalence of these two things, and how it would be scientifically proved. That proof happens when the science does both (e)RIGHT (the computer) and the brain physics (e)LEFT are compared and contrasted..... As a matter of normalisation of a science that currently lacks the latter. The substrate independence hypothesis is a hypothesis that the two can create equivalent levels (indistinguishable) of intelligent behaviour. This is how you prove it: for the purposes you have to compare the two, not assume it true. Have I finally thrown the ball over the home plate? Colin Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-Md96fad97b5cbd47c3474ba5a> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M271b4fb0d1581a79053bba7c Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
