On 5/4/21, WriterOfMinds <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 04, 2021, at 11:31 AM, Mike Archbold wrote: >> Colin's methods are first and foremost scientific. You can't > fault that. > The scientific methods by which Colin hopes to test his claims remain pretty > cloudy to me. > > He has a proposed hardware device/architecture, which he believes does a > better job of emulating brain physics than a traditional digital computer. > But I don't know what algorithm he is going to run on it. And I can't > remember seeing him hypothesize a *mechanism* by which the unique physics of > his device will affect the output, or even describing (in specifics) how he > expects the output to differ from the output a digital computer would > produce when running the same algorithm. > > So what falsifiable assumption is he subjecting to experiment?
Hopefully Colin will be along soon to answer... but in general, for the last 10 years I've been reading him emphasizing "science, science, science, science"! > ------------------------------------------ > Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI > Permalink: > https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T7c7052974ce450f1-M5e114a9dfe886242f1e187d9 > Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T7c7052974ce450f1-M875ae6239578dd9a3497866f Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
