Well to complete a thought, I would say that we certainly posit theoretical *ideals* which speak of a kind of perfection conditional on the validity -or strength- of our theory. So even though we might not have everything figured out we might get one part right. Or, even getting it a little wrong we might be able to discover a correlation (in a broad sense of the term) that is instrumental or which leads to greater insight. I guess I just dislike the "perfect operation" part. Jim Bromer
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]>wrote: > 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> > <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
