Hi Colin,
Are there other forums or email lists associated with some of the
other AI communities you mention? I've looked briefly but in vain ...
would appreciate any helpful pointers.
Thanks,
Terren
--- On *Tue, 10/14/08, Colin Hales /<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/*
wrote:
From: Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [agi] Advocacy Is no Excuse for Exaggeration
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 12:43 AM
Hi Matt,
... The Gamez paper situation is now...erm...resolved. You are
right: the paper doesn't argue that solving consciousness is
necessary for AGI. What has happened recently is a subtle shift -
those involved simple fail to make claims about the consciousness
or otherwise of the machines! This does not entail that they are
not actually working on it. They are just being cautious...Also,
you correctly observe that solving AGI on a purely computational
basis is not prohibited by the workers involved in the GAMEZ
paper.. indeed most of their work assumes it!... I don't have a
problem with this...However...'attributing' consciousness to it
based on its behavior is probably about as unscientific as it
gets. That outcome betrays no understanding whatever of
consciousness, its mechanism or its role....and merely assumes
COMP is true and creates an agreement based on ignorance. This is
fatally flawed non-science.
[BTW: We need an objective test (I have one - I am waiting for it
to get published...). I'm going to try and see where it's at in
that process. If my test is acceptable then I predict all COMP
entrants will fail, but I'll accept whatever happens... - and
external behaviour is decisive. Bear with me a while till I get it
sorted.]
I am still getting to know the folks [EMAIL PROTECTED] And the group may
be diverse, as you say ... but if they are all COMP, then that
diversity is like a group dedicated to an unresolved argument over
the colour of a fish's bicycle. If we can attract the attention of
the likes of those in the GAMEZ paper... and others such as Hynna
and Boahen at Stanford, who have an unusual hardware neural
architecture...(Hynna, K. M. and Boahen, K. 'Thermodynamically
equivalent silicon models of voltage-dependent ion channels',
/Neural Computation/ vol. 19, no. 2, 2007. 327-350.) ...and others
... then things will be diverse and authoritative. In particular,
those who have recently essentially squashed the computational
theories of mind from a neuroscience perspective- the 'integrative
neuroscientists':
Poznanski, R. R., Biophysical neural networks : foundations of
integrative neuroscience, Mary Ann Liebert, Larchmont, NY, 2001,
pp. viii, 503 p.
Pomerantz, J. R., Topics in integrative neuroscience : from cells
to cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK ; New
York, 2008, pp. xix, 427 p.
Gordon, E., Ed. (2000). Integrative neuroscience : bringing
together biological, psychological and clinical models of the
human brain. Amsterdam, Harwood Academic.
The only working, known model of general intelligence is the
human. If we base AGI on anything that fails to account
scientifically and completely for /all/ aspects of human
cognition, including consciousness, then we open ourselves to
critical inferiority... and the rest of science will simply find
the group an irrelevant cultish backwater. Strategically the group
would do well to make choices that attract the attention of the
'machine consciousness' crowd - they are directly linked to
neuroscience via cog sci. The crowd that runs with JETAI (journal
of theoretical and experimental artificial intelligence) is also
another relevant one. It'd be nice if those people also saw the
AGI journal as a viable repository for their output. I for one
will try and help in that regard. Time will tell I suppose.
cheers,
colin hales
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- On Mon, 10/13/08, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the wider world of science it is the current state of play that the
theoretical basis for real AGI is an open and multi-disciplinary
question. A forum that purports to be invested in achievement of real
AGI as a target, one would expect that forum to a multidisciplianry
approach on many fronts, all competing scientifically for access to
real AGI.
I think this group is pretty diverse. No two people here can agree on how
to build AGI.
Gamez, D. 'Progress in machine consciousness', Consciousness and
Cognition vol. 17, no. 3, 2008. 887-910.
$31.50 from Science Direct. I could not find a free version. I don't
understand why an author would not at least post their published papers on
their personal website. It greatly increases the chance that their paper is
cited. I understand some publications require you to give up your copyright
including your right to post your own paper. I refuse to publish with them.
(I don't know the copyright policy for Science Direct, but they are really milking
the "publish or perish" mentality of academia. Apparently you pay to publish
with them, and then they sell your paper).
In any case, I understand you have a pending paper on machine
consciousness. Perhaps you could make it available. I don't believe that
consciousness is relevant to intelligence, but that the appearance of
consciousness is. Perhaps you can refute my position.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------
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/?&;
Powered by Listbox: 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 [Powered by
Listbox] <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 [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
