Imagine a group of researchers with diagrams, oscilloscopes, etc., working on a small box that is making a loud noise, trying to figure out how to "fix" it. The circuit diagram appears to include an unstable circuit that is oscillating, that is connected to a transducer that is making the noise. Removing the power source stops the noise, but it resumes soon after the power source is reconnected. Careful study of the circuit shows that it is controlled by an ionization chamber, and disconnecting the chamber also quiets the alarm. Hence, we now have two "cures" for the loud noise. They publish their cure, collect their money, and move onto researching another "cure", instead of throwing the cigarette smokers out of the lab.
There are VERY few things in our bodies whose operation can be shown to be anything short of theoretically perfect. OK, so why do we get sick and age? Apparently, because that is the very best that perfect can do, in the face of things like superstitious learning and self-adaption to artificial environments. If this is NOT the case, then the FIRST task for a researcher is, or rather should be, showing what would be "perfect" that is not happening perfectly. My previously low body temperature that caused me SO many health problems was the result of apparently perfect process control, that was sabotaged by theoretically unavoidable superstitious learning. My previous glaucoma blind spots were the result of a lifetime of perfect self-adaptation to the physical imperfections of my two eyes. Now that I understand these things, I can engineer simple interventions to manipulate and correct these problems - usually by making a new problem to self-adapt to, that reverses prior self-adaption gone awry. However, literally pouring billions of dollars into trying to understand every ion and enzyme to figure out exactly WHY at the molecular level things are working SO perfectly (when they haven't even asked themselves what "perfect" might be) is a COMPLETE waste of time and money - just like the example above of reverse engineering a smoke detector. Cognitive psychology has fallen into this same trap, as has DNA analysis, brain mapping, fMRI research, etc. Suppose I have a black box that whenever I input a number, it immediately displays the square root of that number. How does it work? Of course it could work in many different ways, e.g. successive approximation, digit-by-digit extraction, etc. However, these areas of "research" are looking for ANY way they can see for things to work, and publishing their "discoveries" that may but probably do NOT have anything to do with any reality besides their own thoughts. Before you can conclude ANYTHING about a really complex system (like us), you must first posit what perfect operation would be, and then examine the DIFFERENCE between theoretical and perfect to discover what is REALLY happening therein. In ALL of the areas that should now be supporting AGI efforts, mathematics, neurosciences, cognitive psychology, computer development, etc., this basic principle has been missed, leaving AGI with NOTHING to run with. I have posted about this several times in the past, but so far NO ONE had made any comments that indicate that they grok this ever so basic principle. I am beginning to thing that the "human condition" disables (most) people from being able to think at this level. Any thoughts? 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
