Colin, you haven't answered my question. I don't understand how electrical noise from neurons magically makes intelligence possible.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 7:55 PM Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 4:44 AM WriterOfMinds <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Colin reminds me of Searle. I think the claim that underlies all his >> arguments is "cognition cannot be achieved by algorithms." >> > > Thanks for opening this door. > > The *paper* (not me) claims (with empirical evidence) that a science that > assumes a claim "cognition can be achieved by algorithms in GP-computers", > an equivalence of nature and abstract models not achieved anywhere else in > the history of the science of natural phenomena, if it is to be fully and > formally tested conclusively, must include null hypothesis testing that > does not presuppose it to be true. Assuming it to be true has ambiguously > failed non-stop for 65 years .... (evidence = see supplementary 1-3 for > the failure details) while all along the actual empirical tests that > properly prove it are simply missing. Restoration of the necessary > empirical science option reveals AI as currently entirely conducted as a > unique form of theoretical science. The physical activity of an entire > community is indistinguishable in practice from what is called theoretical > science everywhere else. Only AI does this. Neuroscience does not. It > simply doesn't directly do AI at all but could if it knew what could be > done (See supplementary 2-4). > > Section 5 details the proposed change to the testing (through introduction > of the neuromorphic chip and its empirical science) ... and at the end of > section 5 in black and white: > > *"Note that none of the above discussion is intended to imply that > GP-computers cannot reach equivalence with natural brain function under > circumstances not yet understood. That potentiality is not the issue here > and is not contested. The issue here is how neuroscience and the science of > AI must be configured to empirically determine any potential equivalence > and the context in which it may happen. "* > > If you see holes in the paper's argument then supply evidence and how it > impacts the specific claims in the paper. I can react helpfully to > counter-evidence, not opinions. > > The paper can possibly be interpreted as completing Searle's argument from > a science perspective. Whether it does or doesn't is moot and for somebody > else to evaluate. It changes nothing in the paper and his work did not > inspire the paper. This paper was founded on evidence in the form of a > measurement/detection of broken science operating at the heart of 2 > scientific disciplines (neuroscience & AI) blinded to it by nothing more > than discipline separation, habit and 65 years of mimicry of mentors. > > Who's frustrated? Get in the queue! :-) > > Colin > > > > > >> Therefore, he regards any algorithmic approach (including algorithms that >> model neuronal EM fields) as a non-starter. In his mind, experiments that >> measure the achievements of any algorithmic approach or brain simulation >> are still not "empirical," because any algorithm (including algorithms that >> simulate the brain) is a theoretical model of cognition rather than a >> potential achievement of cognition. An analogy that I remember from either >> him or Searle or both is, "a simulation of a rainstorm will not get your >> computer wet." >> >> I don't agree with him, but watching all of you talk past each other is >> frustrating me. >> > *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/Tf319c0e4c79c9397-M572d8d4c007158c74a6eae63> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf319c0e4c79c9397-M8b0624c265d8d6ca723968c6 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
