> > I completely agree that puzzles can be ever so much more interesting when > you can successfully ignore that they cannot possibly lead to anything > useful. Further, people who point out the reasons that they cannot succeed > are really boors and should be censored. This entire thread should be > entitled something like "Psychiatric Censorship". >
I don't know why you are talking about **censorship**. The Internet is large. This email list is not intended for discussions of spiritual philosophy or biochemistry -- for example -- yet that does not constitute **censorship** in the usual sense, as there are many other forums in which to discuss those things. And the anti-digital-computer-AGI arguments presented on this list have, not in one instance, been significantly original. I and anyone else who has been around the AI community awhile, has heard them all before. There is nothing to be gained by hearing them over and over again. If someone has a substantially new argument against the possibility of engineering AGI digital-computers, I would be personally interested to hear it. Just as I was intrigued by Penrose's anti-digital-AGI argument in terms of quantum gravity .. at first ... until I dug in more deeply and decided the evidence currently does not support it... > > "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first > overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson > Add to that: "Nothing will ever succeed if all objections are not first > considered" - Steve Richfield > But this latter aphorism has the immediate logical conclusion that nothing will ever succeed. Because, there is an infinite number of possible objections to any statement, so long as one counts as different any two objections that differ slightly in wording, even if their meaning is essentially the same. What you don't seem to understand is that I, and most of the other AGI engineers on this list, have **already heard all these objections** --- we have read them in the primary research literature, when they were first proposed decades ago, and we don't really need to hear them repeated over and over again, usually in rougher and less precise form than the initial presentations in the literature. Our lack of agreement with these arguments is NOT because we have not heard them repeated often enough!! -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
