On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 05:12:45PM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > By this same argument, we need this kind of computational power to > create a pocket calculator. Because, before pocket calculators were
A pocket calculator is a primitive system. You, Sir, are no pocket calculator. > built, the human brain was the only known system able to carry out > complex arithmetic calculations... > > AGI systems, via having radically different architectures from the > human brain, may potentially make far more effective use of > computational resources. So give that you don't know how much the human brain does crunch and how effectively it work, can you quantify "far more effective"? And give the reationale behind that estimate? > No, I don't expect skeptics to believe this --- but I don't see why > the opposite argument (that human brain level compute power is needed > for AGI) is any more convincing, based on the existing evidence... So you have the evidence that a pocket calculator is enough for AGI? Or that 5 MIPS is enough for AGI, as people in early 1980s have claimed? So how much is just enough for AGI? Kurzweil likes to pull some bogus numbers out of nowhere and offering no justifications. Would you agree that Kurzweil's numbers are enough? -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
