Steve, At first I thought you were going to say something that made sense, but then I had to reread what you said to make sure that your conclusion was odd. You said, "Before you can conclude ANYTHING about a really complex system ..., you must first posit what perfect operation would be..." This is, how can I put it nicely, excessively demanding. It is atypical to find that some technology is going to be understood perfectly during the initial stages of the development of that technology. I don't grok what you are saying because it seems obviously infeasible.
For example, you applied this remark to cognitive psychology. If you told me that you can posit what a perfect operation of cognitive science is I would cut back on the amount of time that I spent on your posts because I would conclude that you were not being very reasonable right now. Jim Bromer On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]>wrote: > 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | > 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
