Excellent topic. During every action potential every neuron *solves* an n-body problem analog ‘doing’/ execution and the information is electrically carried and integrated in the brain http://neuroelectrodynamics.blogspot.com/p/spike-directivity.html *The fundamental process of computation by physical interaction in the brain has been widely misunderstood*.
Dorian On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Peter Voss <[email protected]> wrote: > This issues has bothered me for a long time, and I’d like to explore it a > bit:**** > > ** ** > > While digital computers obviously can be set up to solve equations, there > still seems to be a significant difference in efficiency of simulating/ > calculating versus physical analog ‘doing’/ execution – like for example in > solving an n-body problem. Real systems system just produce the result by > interaction of all the forces (electro/ mechanical), while computers have > to approximate/ iterate. **** > > ** ** > > Key question: Are there AGI common problems where digital/simulated > approaches need hyper-exponential amounts of computing power compared to > physical systems? Is this kind of equation-solving core to AGI? I don’t > think so, but…**** > > ** ** > > Other may be able to formulate this better. **** > > ** ** > > What has bothered me is the glib assertion that a digital computer an > calculate to any arbitrary level of precision (true)… but does the cost > become unworkable in practice, even with Moore’s law.**** > > ** ** > > Peter**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Steve Richfield [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:39 AM > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Happy 100th Birthday Alan Turing - No, computers > will never think, but machines will!**** > > ** ** > > Hey everyone, > > Remember my discussions about how computers fundamentally compute > functions, while biological neurons appear to fundamentally solve equations > - a MUCH higher level thing to do. It appears possible to design something > resembling a computer to do this, but NOT to simulate this sort of > functionality in any sort of practical way because of the astronomical > inefficiency of solving huge systems of simultaneous NON-linear equations > using conventional computational methods. > > No, I don't think that we need any sort of silicon wetware, but we DO > appear to need a radically more advanced sort of "computer", but probably > NOT anything that Turing has ever thought of - in short, NOT a "Turing > machine". > > Besides, you'll never get 2-D silicon to work like 3-D wetware. > > Steve > ================**** > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/17795807-366cfa2a> | > 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
