Sergio, I am sure that most of everything that happened in aeronautical engineering could be tied to a principle, but that is not the same as saying that everything was as if every advancement was knowingly bound to a principle when first conceived or otherwise created. The use of mathematics is an important tool in science and technology. No question about that. Jim Bromer
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Sergio Pissanetzky <[email protected] > wrote: > Jim,**** > > ** ** > > I read this thread and grow more and more alarmed. Everything that > happened in Aeronautical Engineering was tied to a principle. A principle > is a mathematical statement that descibes a law of nature. A principle can > be used to engineer other things, such as AGI or airplanes, because it is > sufficiently mathematical for that purpose, but can not itself be > engineered because it is natural. That's what makes it a principle. **** > > ** ** > > Aeronautical Engineering started when the forces of lift, drag and > propulsion were explained in terms of Newton's equations. That is the > principle. Knowing this principle, useful replication became possible > because the space of possibilities had been sufficiently narrowed down, and > everything else being said in this thread followed. Without the principle, > we would be allowed to believe that the feathers of birds are "creative" or > "intelligent" in some way because they can "reason" and they "know" how to > make the bird fly. **** > > ** ** > > In AGI, there is no principle. For some time now I have been proposing > emergent inference (EI) as a principle for AGI. EI is a mathematical > statement, it is mathematical enough to be used for engineering AGI, and it > can not be engineered itself because is is a natural law. There is evidence > that EI, and what we today call intelligence, have something to do with > each other. Furthermore, the mechanism of EI is such that it would not be > discovered even if a full synapse-to-synapse replication of the entire > brain were made. Even in that case, EI would remain hidden. Brain > replicators and reverse-engineers are not after EI because they don't know > EI exists. **** > > ** ** > > I feel EI must be seriously considered. **** > > ** ** > > On a different note, the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) was not > intended to replicate anything, except of course that testing it would have > required to replicate many experiments that had been already performed, to > make sure it works. The SSC was intended to observe the Higgs boson. I > should know. I worked on the SSC for years until it was cancelled by > Congress. And yes, physicists miss the observer, but not totally, they just > don't know what to do about the observer. **** > > ** ** > > Sergio**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jim Bromer [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:53 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.**** > > **** > > 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. However, the argument that physicists do not get the > need for observer and neuroscientists do not get the need for replication > is not insightful. I don't know why the elimination of the necessity of > working from a foundation of observed physical effects lost traction with > some physicists, however, the popularization of the concept signifies the > trivialization of the concept. The concept has been trivialized.**** > > **** > > Jim Bromer **** > > **** > > * * > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> | > Modify Your > Subscription****<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > > **** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > > ** ** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > *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
