This is ground that has been well-trodden in the recent literature on hypercomputation.
Mathematically, yes, analog computers (and analog neural nets) can in principle do hyper-Turing computation Quantum physics appears to rule out this kind of analog computing existing in reality, but general relativity would permit it... and as you know these theories have not yet been unified. String theory and loop quantum gravity would also, according to my best understanding, not permit it... Since the totality of scientific data consists of a large finite set of finite-precision numbers, there is no possible way for science (as presently conceived) to validate or refute the hypothesis that hyper-Turing computers (of the analog or other variety) exist physically. In this sense, the hypothesis of trans-Turing computing in the brain or any other physical system is non-scientific. -- Ben G On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Sergio Pissanetzky <[email protected]>wrote: > Ben, **** > > ** ** > > You asked recently for comments on analog computation (I forgot what > thread that was, so I started a new one). My comment is on the need for a > comparison between Turing computation and analog computation. Of course, AC > can do all that TC can do, but can it do more? I believe it can. TC is > particularly weak in everything related to binding, associations, and the > resulting structures (BAS). Anywhere that BAS are needed, humans are called > for help. Have you noticed? It never fails. I have compiled a list of > problems that are "easy for humans but very difficult for computers to > solve", the GUAPS, great unsolved automation problems of software > engineering. They all critically depend on BAS. They include OO analysis > and design, object recognition, self-programming, and many others. Turing > himself was concerned about this limitation, and he wrote extensively about > it in the context of morphogenesis but never solved the problem. **** > > ** ** > > The GUAPs, of course, include the invariant structures that our brains > make (I know a chair is a chair even if it is upside down => invariance > under transformations).**** > > ** ** > > It seems to me that AC can do more than TC. Because physical systems do > self-organize and make structures. Physics even has theorems about this. If > so, AGI would be squarely outside the domain of TC, and strictly within > that part of the domain of AC that is not TC.**** > > ** ** > > Sergio**** > > ** ** > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57>| > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > **** > > <http://www.listbox.com>**** > > ** ** > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche ------------------------------------------- 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
