This is confusingly put, Steve – it’s not surprising if people don’t comment.
If you’re basically repeating your point in the previous thread – that we are
extremely ignorant and confused re the real workings of a v. complex, plastic
system like the brain – fine, then why bother talking about it any more?
Turing-von Neumann didn’t have neuroscience to conceive a computer solving
routine problems.
We don’t need neuroscience to conceive a robot solving creative problems – wh.
is what AGI is about.
But neuroscience is useful here because it does confirm that no independent
real world agent can solve problems without having and engaging a body for
simulation - because real world problems are all about bodies (however
abstract they may casually appear).
From: Steve Richfield
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:36 PM
To: AGI
Subject: [agi] Smoke Detector Logic...
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 | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
