Again I can't speak for Colin, but I believe the basic idea is that the electromagnetic fields are merely part of the theory, not the theory in totality. He doesn't discount the neural substrate, no. That's a crucial part of the theory. It's both the neural elements and the associated (very strong) EM fields that are prominent in his theory. I believe the "interface" of sorts is the role that the EM field generated by the mind plays in influencing the neural activity. I suppose you can simply discount the electric fields as mere noise but that is a point of contention I think.
On 12/23/20, Matt Mahoney <mattmahone...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 12:45 PM WriterOfMinds <jennifer.hane....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> I don't agree with him, but watching all of you talk past each other is >> frustrating me. >> > > Me too. Colin's argument is that nobody else has produced AGI either, so > his theory is as good as any other. > > It's ridiculous. We already understand how neural networks work. They are > the most successful models we have for vision, language, and robotics, but > they require massive computing power that's only recently become available > if you have millions to invest. It has nothing to do with the magic of > consciousness emenating from electromagnetic fields. His theory doesn't > even try to explain how that might work. > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf319c0e4c79c9397-M2d0e7d6a7f3cef5b082dcd3a Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
