Brad Wyble wrote, replying to Alan Grimes: > I'm just trying to give you a taste of the sophistications that > are relevant to brain function and cannot be glossed over. >
I know you were replying to Alan not me, but I'll make a comment anyway ;) The unstable nature of neuroscience knowledge is why I decided not to try to emulate the brain in my AGI designs. For years I was told that new synapses never arose in the adult human brain... then in the late 90's, all of a sudden, the story was different! Exciting new papers came out demonstrating that traditional neuroscience wisdom was wrong on this point, at least in some situations. That specific discovery was what made up my mind for me: The brain is not well enough understood to use as a basis for AGI designs in any serious way. It can serve as an *inspiration* in a conceptual sense, but not as a detailed guide. I believe that the precision with which digital computers can do things, will allow intelligence to be implemented more simply on them than in the brain. This precision allows entirely different structures and dynamics to be utilized, in digital AGI systems as opposed to brains. For example, it allows correct probabilistic inference calculations (which humans, at least on the conscious level) are miserable at making; it allows compact expression of complex procedures as higher-order functions (a representation that is really profoundly unbrainlike); etc. -- Ben ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
