Hi Colin
>In my most recent posting there is this interaction that answers one of your >question: I presume you mean my comment on spare cash and resources, it was actually a statement not a question but I understand your point of view and predicament. In an ideal scenario your method, without using computers, might indeed produce results. I do feel that 10-15 years is a little optimistic though considering what has to be done, not least of which is physically designing your actual chip, prototyping, testing, etc. I don’t mean to patronise and I understand your desire for an actual physical chip along with the empirical truths, but have you tried simulating your ideas/ concepts on computer? Investors are going to need something besides a theory, anything is better than nothing. I’m sure a decent simulation encompassing the essence of EMF’s could be produced, orientation, field strength, scope/ penetration, wave length, etc. If the military, nuclear physicists can trust a computer simulation to design/ predict the yield/ qualities of a nuclear device without gaining the empirical data from an actual detonation then I’m sure you could simulate EMF fields at a sufficient resolution to gain insights. Not to mention the simulation of quantum qubits… *The empirical evidence derives from simulations of two universal random quantum circuits, one with depth 27 for 49 qubits and one with depth 23 for 56 qubits.** * https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/julich-46-qubit-simulation-top-supercomputers,news-57562.html >I am assuming you didn't mean the statement the way it looks. Yup I did, the key word here is ‘functions’. I agree there’s loads of data regarding the structure of the brain, but everything regarding its actual operation/ functioning, how it achieves conscious thought, etc is speculation… otherwise this site wouldn't exist, we would already have AGI’s. With regards to the rest of your post, with all due respect, it’s a pointless discussion. If we don’t have the infrastructure, cash or time to adopt the schema within a meaningful time scale then I don’t see how it’s relevant to us at this point in time. By all means fight for change in the future and redefine AGI research; you may go down in the annals of history as the guy that enabled AGI to be created… if the rest of us ultimately fail. :) ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T4cc8d68d18f1759a-Mdd3b0f6c13987e88ee2d259f Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
