Ben, I just LOVE your posting, because it asks exactly the right questions.
On 5/31/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think that brain scanning is an interesting and important > technology/research direction, but I don't see why you think it is > easier to create than AGI. I think that we could agree that if we could somehow wring this out to everyone's satisfaction, that two different fields might be combined to everyone's benefit. OK, so I'll try to "return your ball" here: > Of course we have no solid proof as to > which is easier, but my sense is that AGI is easier because it's "just > programming" In a very real sense, both efforts are "just programming", only the scanning looks (to me) to be a lot easier since it only involves 3D reconstruction based point data. The BIG challenge is recognizing what is significant functionally and what is not. Note that there are presently a number of microscopists working on just this problem, but without (what either of us would consider to be) adequate tools. > (and I have a design in hand that I believe will be > workable, though many details remain to be resolved), Like all software, it will do what it is designed to do. However, will it then evolve into the great super-intelligence of the future? If you (and others) are capable of recognizing and overcoming EVERY SINGLE ONE of those puzzles, then it may/will. If you fail to recognize and solve JUST ONE of those puzzles, then it won't. I see brain scanning to be cheap insurance that AGI will indeed achieve its wildest dreams, and I suspect that this case could also be made to prospective investors, for YOUR direct and immediate benefit to provide you funding while the scanning equipment is being designed, constructed, and utilized in parallel with your present efforts. I think that this may be one of these rare situations where it may be easier to get two projects funded instead of one. Here, AGI guarantees a market for the scanner, and the scanner guarantees ultimate success for AGI. Either of these failing does NOT spell disaster for the investment. > whereas > effective brain scanning requires a load of physical engineering > work.... Not that much! Note that semiconductor manufacturers already use e-beam scanning to "write" one-off semiconductors, and that my scanning UV fluorescence microscope requires NO new science, and could hence be farmed out as an engineering project. Hence, either of these approaches could be in operation within a year or so, as only money is lacking. With NO money, none of either of our efforts stands a chance. With some realistic investment money, scanning would at minimum be cheap insurance that you will be able to overcome ALL of your future problems. > I don't believe that we need to understand brain function in detail to > make an AGI ... Neither is complete understanding needed for human brain emulation, though whatever understanding there is will sure help debugging. > human-brain-emulation is not the only approach to AGI, I agree. However, even without emulation, a roadmap would sure be helpful. > and IMO is a very risky approach to take due to the ethically erratic > nature of human brain architecture. Again I agree. However, there could literally be BILLIONS of investment dollars to support all of our efforts if immortality were available to the highest bidder. On the other hand, first AGIs will be no better than babies - and we already have too many of them. > I am more interested in making > AGI systems with action-selection mechanisms more closely tied to > logically consistent goal hierarchies, and with greater > self-understanding. As I have been posting and explaining, our own very human goal selection sure doesn't work very well, and should NOT be a model for a future AGI, for the SAME ethical/dangerous reasons as simulating human structure. Learning simply doesn't work here, as we can't afford to have enough nuclear exchanges to learn how to do it right. > Nor am I convinced that UV fluorescence is necessarily going to be the > winning approach to high space-time-res brain scanning ... though it > is certainly one potentially viable approach... Only millions, not billions of dollars are needed to evaluate the alternatives and go with the best. Considering that researchers are successfully using non-scanning fluorescence, complete with its visible light resolution, instead of scanning approaches with UV resolution, to do anything at all, suggests that even if the most minimal goals are achieved, that an investment here would at minimum produce some VERY valuable lab equipment. In short, this should be a moneymaker, even if it proves to be a complete failure for AGI. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
