Agree that the human mind/brain has evolved to work reasonably effectively in a holistic way, in spite of the obviously limitations of various of its components...
To give a more cognitive example of a needless limitation of the human mind: why can't we just remember a few hundred numbers in sequence after one exposure, like an idiot savant? yes, the rest of the human mind has adapted to work around this limitation ... but to imitate this limitation in a computer, with its innate hardware ability to remember information exactly, seems a very frustrating approach... Overall, what this suggests to me is that trying to copy the various parts of the human mind individually is probably a foolish approach, and the best approaches are 1) wait till the brain scientists scan the brain well enough that, by combining appropriate neurocognitive theory w/ brain scan results, we can figure out how the brain works ... then emulate it in hardware 2) forget the details of the brain and make an AGI system that is suited for the hardware we have available, trying to give it the same general sort of qualitative integrity that the human mind/brain has, but based on wildly different details.. (this is the NM/OpenCogPrime approach) ben On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Ben, > > Obviously an argument too massive to be worth pursuing in detail. But just > one point - your arguments are essentially specialist focussing on isolated > anatomical rather than cognitive features, (and presumably we > (science) don't yet have the general, systemic overview necessary to > appreciate what would be the practical consequences to the rest of the body > of, say, altering those isolated features like the clitoris - which, ahem, > can, like everything else, no doubt, ideally, be improved). I am asserting a > general, systemic philosophy that I applied to the whole of the human mind > - and you have to stand back and look at its apparently crazy > contradictions as a whole. > > Just as you are in a rational, specialist way picking off isolated > features, so, similarly, rational, totalitarian thinkers used to object to > the crazy, contradictory complications of the democratic, "conflict" system > of decisionmaking by contrast with their pure ideals. And hey, there *are* > crazy and inefficient features - it's a real, messy system. But, as a > whole, it works better than any rational, totalitarian, non-conflict system. > Cog sci can't yet explain why, though, can it? (You guys, without realising > it, are all rational, totalitarian systembuilders). > > Ben/MT: > >> Ben:but, from a practical perspective, it seems more useful to think >> about minds that are rougly similar to human minds, yet better adapted to >> existing computer hardware, and lacking humans' most severe ethical and >> motivational flaws >> >> Well a) I think that we now agree that you are engaged in a basically, >> however loosely, humanoid endeavour (and thanks for setting out your >> thinking). But b) I disagree about those "flaws". My general philosophy >> which I keep stressing (& is perhaps v. v. loosely in parts in line with >> Richard's) is: yes, everywhere you look at the human system, you see what >> look like flaws. But, as a general principle, those "flaws" are actually >> great design when you understand the problems they are meant to deal with. >> > > > This is one of those misleading half-truths... > > Evolution sometimes winds up solving optimization problems effectively, but > it solves each one given constraints that are posed by its prior solutions > to other problems ... > > For instance, it seems one of the reasons we're not smarter than we are is > that evolution couldn't figure out how to make our heads bigger without > having too many of us get stuck coming out the vaginal canal during birth. > Heads got bigger, hips got wider ... up to a point ... but then the process > stopped so we're the dipshits that we are. Evolution was solving an > optimization problem (balancing maximization of intelligence and > minimization of infant and mother mortality during birth) but within a > context set up by its previous choices ... it's not as though it achieved > the maximum possible intelligence for any humanoid, let alone for any being. > > Similarly, it's hard for me to believe that human teeth are optimal in any > strong sense. No, no, no. They may have resulted as the solution to some > optimization problem based on the materials and energy supply and food > supply at hand at some period of evolutionary history ... but I refused to > believe that in any useful sense they are an ideal chewing implement, or > that they embody some amazingly wise evolutionary insight into the nature of > chewing. > > Is the clitoris optimal? There is a huge and silly literature on this, but > (as much of the literature agrees) it seems obvious that it's not. > > The human immune system is an intelligent pattern recognition system, but > if it were a little cleverer, we wouldn't need vaccines and we wouldn't have > AIDS... > > We don't understand every part of the human brain/body, but those parts we > do understand do NOT convey the message that you suggest. They reflect a > reality that the human brain/body is a mess combining loads of elegant > solutions with loads of semi-random hacks. Not surprisingly, this is also > what we see in the problem-solutions produced by evolutionary algorithms in > computer science simulations. > > -- Ben G > > > > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
