Berick, On a slight aside, I have posted here before about the differences between unidirectional computation, what computers do, and bidirectional computation, what circuits and neurons do. While you can simulate bidirectional systems on unidirectional hardware, e.g. like SPICE does, it is SO nonlinearly slow, taking n log n time, where n is the number of components. Counting all of the synapses in the brain, there are something like 10**16 major components to be broken down.
What seems to be needed is bidirectional computing hardware. I have tried to stir up interest here, but so far, no joy. Steve On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, 3:35 PM Berick Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > So what you're saying, Colin, is that the computation that occurs via the > binary transistors of a computer is fundamentally different than the > computation that occurs in the neural structures of the brain? And you take > issue with people assuming that both forms of computation "can create > equivalent levels (indistinguishable) of intelligent behaviour"? > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:18 PM Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed., 3 Jul. 2019, 7:05 am Matt Mahoney, <[email protected]> >> 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 >> >> > > -- > Berick Cook > Independent Developer > AI Research <http://airis-ai.com/> > Games / Software <http://berickcook.itch.io> > YouTube Channel <https://www.youtube.com/c/berickcook> > *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-M489a858cfdb318a7afaf4248> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M0e39f7e31a0c603a70e780ed Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
