Colin: The Wright Bros did not simulate _*anything*_.
They*REPLICATED* the physics. (Computers didn’t exist then!) That’s the whole point of my CERN remark.**** Here is the Wikipedia definition of Simulation: *Simulation* is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation#cite_note-definition-0>The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics or behaviors of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time. Obviously, a wind tunnel is used to simulate the characteristics that one might expect to find with a larger model, or a model that is to fly higher and in natural conditions. Now you have made a good point that a computer simulation of how the brain works is not the same as having a simulation using the same kind of material that brains work with. By this standard, then, the simulations that neural scientists HAVE made using collections of neurons would constitute a TRUE simulation or what you have called "replication" (if indeed the wind tunnel is a "replication"of the conditions that one is wishing the model to represent.) I would say, drop the special meanings of the terms and the bad metaphors and the morphed facts and just stick to the point. (Sheesh, no wonder it is so difficult for you.) There is enough evidence to suggest that the computer has a number of characteristics to allow it to simulate the working of a mind to such an extent that, at the very least, it would be analogous to the testing of an airplane by using a model in a wing tunnel (along with using a number of other simulation tests). It is difficult (and a little absurd to even try) to quantify that evidence. However, that does not mean that the evidence does not exist. --It’s a little harder to see what’s happening in a brain, but the principle is sound. It's also a little harder to see what's happening in the future but the principle of an expectation of incremental advances is sound. On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales < [email protected]> wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jim Bromer [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 27 June 2012 1:53 AM > > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Happy 100th Birthday Alan Turing - No, computers > will never think, but machines will!**** > > ** ** > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales < > [email protected]> wrote:**** > > Physicists get the need for replication, but totally miss the need for the > observer in science.**** > > Neuroscientists are examine the physics of the observer, and total miss > the role of replication in science.**** > > Sheesh this is hard.**** > > **** > > **** > > That is an interesting point but you are dealing with two areas on the > frontiers of science. It is a little too conservative. You want to be on > the edge of new sciences but wish that they were framed with the dark > stained oaks of the finest institutions. You sound a little > like a caricature of a somewhat stuffy academic.**** > > ** ** > > Woohoo! I have finally made the grade to stuffy academic! J**** > > **** > > In replying to you I did see that simple simulations that led to basic > insights about how an airplane should be designed were a key part of the > Wright's method of development so I am going to start doing some simple > experiments in AGI. **** > > ** ** > > The Wright Bros did not simulate _*anything*_.**** > > ** ** > > They *REPLICATED* the physics. (Computers didn’t exist then!) That’s the > whole point of my CERN remark.**** > > *REPLICATION*, even when you know nothing about the physics, will tell > you what to model by helping to formalise the physics.**** > > ** ** > > The replicated physics of flight flies. Computed/simulated physics doesn’t. > **** > > Ergo, by extension, **** > > The replicated physics of a brain cognises. Computed/simulated models > don’t.**** > > ** ** > > It’s a little harder to see what’s happening in a brain, but the principle > is sound.**** > > ** ** > > CERN/LHC folk know this.**** > > Time for the rest of us to catch on.**** > > ** ** > > Do you get the difference between replication and > (simulation/emulation/mimicry)? **** > > This is the brick wall I keep hitting. **** > > ** ** > > Ok. I think I’ll just crawl back under my stodgy academic rock.**** > > ** ** > > Cheers**** > > Colin**** > > ** ** > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
