Jim, On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Which simply demonstrates that you do NOT grok what I am saying here. > It is atypical to find that some technology is going to be understood > perfectly during the initial stages of the development of that technology. > We are nearly 200 million years into development and function SO nearly perfectly that it is REALLY hard to find anything that is not apparently perfect. So, yes, it IS a high bar to understand us, but such is the task. Of course you could go off and spend another 200 million years and do a better job without understanding our operation. You might even work a million times faster, but you STILL won't get the job done before they plant you. > I don't grok what you are saying because it seems obviously infeasible. > I have been successfully working in this area, by presuming perfection and drilling down into how a "perfect" system could have such problems, and finding things that when affected reverse real-world illnesses. I agree that turning that around to replicate intelligence would be VERY difficult, but such is the task that cognitive psychologists have chosen. > > 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. > "Perfect" cognitive science would presume that WE are perfect, and look for operational details for which there is NO place in a perfect system. THOSE would then become the basis for their conclusions. Steve ============= 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- 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
