From: Steve Richfield said:
Some clues as to the totality of the difficulties are the ~200 different types
of neurons, and in the 40 years of ineffective AI/AGI research. I have seen NO
recognition of this fundamental issue in other postings on this forum. This
level of difficulty strongly implies that NO clever programming will ever
achieve human-scale (and beyond) intelligence, until some way is found to
"mine" the evolutionary lessons "learned" during the last ~200 million years.
---------------------------------------------------
I totally agree that the complexities of the neuron, and how they interact is
still far beyond the capabilities of contemporary science. The fact that you
have seen NO recognition of this fundamental issue in this discussion group is
of little significance to the subject. I know that I read a few comments that
were in agreement with the basic argument that much remains to be discovered
about the neuron so that statement seems to be a personal one. Your opinion
that NO clever programming will ever achieve human-scale intelligence until
some way is found to "mine" the evolutionary lessons "learned" is not based on
substantial technical evidence. (I do feel that advanced AI would be quite
different from human intelligence, and I also believe that there are some
mysteries of conscious experience that are not explained by the computational
theory of mind). However, notice that the reasons that one might use to
support your argument would almost all be
passive (or incidental) and not actively instructive relative to the
fundamental problem of finding further technical details of what would be
needed to create higher forms of artificial intelligence. There are certainly
many cases in human history when this kind of argument was the most
utilitarian, because it is the primitive argument of fundamental infeasibility.
Until a technology is developed for the first time, the argument that it
cannot be done until some other event occurs is likely to be beyond direct
disproof until the technology is actually developed. But it is also beyond
direct proof or even substantial discussion. Your comment about the 200
neurons can be investigated and thereby proven or disproved (within a range of
acceptability) but your statement that human level intelligence will not occur
until the evolutionary lessons of the development of intelligence is mined is a
statement that can be neither proved or disproved until the
technology has been developed. The offering of some of those lessons might be
interesting, but the statement of your opinion IS ONLY THAT (to use your
capitalization strategy of expression.) It cannot be proved or disproved for
some time, it does not prove or disprove some other interesting technical
question, nor does it provide new insight into the more interesting questions
of what is feasible and what is not feasible in contemporary AI.
Jim Bromer
-------------------------------------------
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
