I don't think you guys should start another forum, necessarily, sounds kind of furthering factionization. Actually it starts to sound like what happened to good old AI, now called narrow AI. Everybody started at Dartmouth, then pretty soon broken up into subdisciplines of subdisciplines, etc.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]>wrote: > Going back on-forum after off-forum email and phone discussions with > Dorian. > > Irrelevant arguments about experimental methodology aside, the main point > here, in which Dorian and I are in FULL agreement is: > > There is LOTS of experimental and mathematical evidence that the things > that are going on in our brains are WAY WAY beyond the commonly held > beliefs of brain function, based on long past partial observations. > Further, the failures of decades of AI and NN efforts to achieve anything > like real-world performance is further evidence that our the commonly held > beliefs are very wrong. > > The essential point here is that "modern" computers operating to > numerically evaluate unidirectional functions is at best incredibly > inefficient, and generally useless for real-world intelligence. This is > like attacking algebra problems with a calculator. > > Now, when you start focusing in on just WHAT is happening, what could be > happening, and what should be happening in an intelligent system - you > start stirring up arguments, because with zero funding for this. all that > is available is unfunded work like Dorian's and mine.. > > I have mentioned in the past that if you compute the equivalent > gain*bandwidth product for neurons, you start getting numbers that are > about the same as early electronic operational amplifiers, e.g. as used in > early analog computers like those from Heathkit. In short, wetware is fast, > even compared with electronic circuitry. Further, wetware appears to be > adapted for direct simulation, equation solving, and other operations that > are more like calculus than the arithmetic that "modern" digital computers > do. > > Dorian and I, and hopefully others are interested in figuring out how > things REALLY do and should work, rather than trying to replace calculus > with arithmetic, as the present AGI efforts are attempting to do. We > understand that there is absolutely NO WAY to convert the present crop of > arithmetic-enamored AGIers to this sort of thinking, so please don't > interpret these remarks as any attempt to redirect Ben, Richard, or any of > the other AGIers here. > > *We would like to pull together other like minded people, probably onto a > different forum*, because these beliefs don't fit well in this > arithmetic-absorbed culture. Is there anyone else here who is interested in > looking at the many sub-disciplines related to intelligence via > bidirectional computing (a special interest of mine), the value of fields > to bias decisions in localized areas (a special interest of Dorian's), > self-organizing simulation systems, closing the loops that involve wet lab > experiments, mathematics, and simulation, etc., etc.? > > If you know others who might be interested in these and related > approaches, please pass this posting on to them. > > Perhaps if I/we can bring some reality to this discussion, there might > someday actually be an AGI. > > Any interest? > > Steve Richfield > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae> | > 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
