Ben, I don't know what Alan's problem is, but it appears he doesn't understand forums in general, and this forum in particular.
As Alan's first objection to threads that has been running for several days, Alan rises up to request that the subject be killed!!! This is absurd. The whole purpose of threads is for people to follow the ones they are interested in, while ignoring the others. Apparently Alan is unable to participate in this very simple process. The bases for Alan's request are also absurd as explained below. On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Alan Grimes <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm about three days away from formally requesting a killthread on this > EM fields crap. > Ben, you might want to think about moderating Alan. > > 1. Electromagnetism has been Well Understood (tm) for about 140 years now. > So what. This doesn't seem to be an issue. > 2. By [nearly] all accounts, EM fields in the brain are secondary to its > operation. > What accounts? > 3. Neural Science is a well established field that runs parallel to AGI > and, yes, they do VERY careful science. > You obviously have never worked in a neuroscience lab. However, others in this discussion, including myself, HAVE worked in these labs and know the severe limitations of what people think they know about how neurons work. > 4. AGI is not, formally, a science. I can't speak for the others here, but I suspect that most people here agree, but believe that it should become a science once we know enough to talk about the prospective internals of an AGI system. > It is a branch of engineering. > B.S. If this were true, computers would have been thinking for decades by now. There is presently NO recognizable science supporting AGI. AGI has yet to rise to being science, let alone rising to be engineering based on science. 5. In the interests of getting things done, simplifications have to be > made wherever possible. > So what? This doesn't seem to be an issue. The issue here is determining what is essential, and what can be "simplified". There are many opinions, including yours, none of which have significant evidence to support them. > 6. We are not trying to simulate a brain, we are trying to identify what > characteristics are actually required to create a thinking machine. > Agreed. So what? > 7. The standard of evidence, at this point, to indicate some kind of > non-Turing computation is required to produce thinking is > extraordinarily high at this point. > "Turing computation" isn't really a well defined term, e.g. does it include analog computation? I have posted in the past regarding the potential need for bidirectional computation in AGI, which can be simulated on Turing systems with a loss in speed which is proportional to the logarithm of system size. If bidirectional computation proves to be needed, than Turing systems may indeed NOT be up to AGI. Fortunately there are non-Turing approaches to bidirectional computing. Note that Colin's proposal also includes bidirectional computing, though we haven't yet discussed that. There is a pretty strong case for bidirectional computing, so don't clutch your Turing machine too closely. 8. Once AGI is created it is highly probable that it could be further > enhanced by means of mystical physics, ie quantum fields, and stuff, but > right now it's only a distraction. > ONLY if "mystical physics" proves to be unnecessary. I have seen NO hard evidence either way. > 9. The brain may indeed utilize mystical physics to some extent, we > should be extremely cautious about brain emulation, even if you want to > stick your head in the sand about the identity issue. > We are a loooooong way from brain emulation, but it would sure be nice to be able to emulate a single neuron that can do ALL of the things our own neurons do - fast learning, abandoning useless functions, reducing power demands for slow/rare phenomena, etc. - all things that an AGI will also have to do. 10. I have some pretty strong hypothesii about how the brain works but > I'm frustrated by my inability to test those hypothesii for lack of a > simulation environment or a robot. Join the club. Oh, I see you already have. I don't have either. I have been > stuck at this state of not having a testing platform for ten years Only ten years? I can see you are a newbie at this. I have had this same frustration for >40 years. > and > it's driving me nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS explains a LOT ... B-:D> > (this is what > my minecraft post was about...) I saved up about $12,000 out of a > required $16,000 to get a Nao but then I've been unemployed for three > years and have no job prospects in this awful economy. =((((((( > 11. Meanwhile, I have not been chewing up list bandwidth talking about > how great my untested theory is or spending much time deriding other > list participants. > There ARE other paths, e.g. invent something relating to AGI, get a patent, find someone to promote your invention, find a VC, start a company, etc. > > BTW: Hplus-talk mailing list seems to be down and the admin forwarder is > down too. > > IQ is a measure of how stupid you feel. > Aha, you very obviously do NOT feel stupid at all here, so, by your own measure, your IQ must be VERY low. OK, sorry (but not very sorry) I beat you up here, but understand that it is often quite difficult to examine possibilities that violate your world model, which is obviously your difficulty here. Just because something is obviously "crap" doesn't mean that it is crap. If you can't deal with this, then stand aside for others here who CAN deal with it. Steve ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
