Hi all, A point of clarification for those who may be dropping into this discussion:
When you compute with numbers, you are computing individual data points, e.g. a probability of some specific thing at a particular time and place. However, when you compute with equations, you are representing vast ranges of possibilities, that can be "computed" with other vast ranges of things to reach broad conclusions. Of course you could always substitute numbers for variables and compute whatever you want from the equations, to essentially do the same relatively uninteresting sorts of things that present-day computers do. Note that "analog" (in its various incarnations) preserves and computes with relationships, which is similar but weaker than computing with formulas. To put things into perspective, from weakest to strongest: 1. Computing individual data points, as computers now do. I see no conceivable hope for this sort of highly inefficient architecture ever producing anything approaching human capabilities. 2. Continuous "computing" (simulating) while preserving all known relationships. THIS is what analog computation does, and what may be happening within us. However, this is poorly adapted to known manufacturing methods, other than those now routinely used to manufacture us. 3. Computing with equations, which is NOT tied to any time base like analog computation necessarily is, and which encompasses ALL potential futures, rather than evaluating one particular potential future at a time, as analog computation is fundamentally limited to. This would probably go WAY beyond human capabilities. 4. ??? THIS, whatever it is, is what we probably need for the AGI that many people imagine. As you can see from this, we are at least 2 computational revolutions short of AGI, and maybe 3 computational revolutions. I think it may be possible to jump directly to the 2nd revolution. I would sure like to know what #4 might be. Seymour Cray once commented (as he was transitioning from CDC to Cray Research) that he had built his last small computer. I would like to be able to say the same, but now 60 years later and in the present context. BTW, Google couldn't find this quotation. I suspect that it may have been lost to history. Steve ------------------------------------------- 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
