Ed,
Comments interspersed below:
Ed Porter wrote:
Colin,
Here are my comments re the following parts of your below post:
=======Colin said======>
I merely point out that there are fundamental limits as to how
computer science (CS) can inform/validate basic/physical science - (in
an AGI context, brain science). Take the Baars/Franklin "IDA"
project.... It predicts nothing neuroscience can poke a stick at...
===ED's reply===>
Different AGI models can have different degrees of correspondence to,
and different explanatory relevance to, what is believed to take place
in the brain. For example the Thomas Serre's PhD thesis "Learning a
Dictionary of Shape-Components in Visual Cortex: Comparison with
Neurons, Humans and Machines," at from
http://cbcl.mit.edu/projects/cbcl/publications/ps/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2006-028.pdf
, is a computer simulation which is rather similar to my concept of
how a Novamente-like AGI could perform certain tasks in visual
perception, and yet it is designed to model the human visual system to
a considerable degree. It shows that a certain model of how Serre and
Poggio think a certain aspect of the human brain works, does in fact
work surprisingly well when simulated in a computer.
A surprisingly large number of brain science papers are based on
computer simulations, many of which are substantially simplified
models, but they do given neuroscientists a way to poke a stick at
various theories they might have for how the brain operates at various
levels of organization. Some of these papers are directly relevant to
AGI. And some AGI papers are directly relevant to providing answers
to certain brain science questions.
You are quite right! Realistic models can be quite informative and feed
back - suggesting new empirical approaches. There can be great
cross-fertilisation.
However the point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
The phrase "does in fact work surprisingly well when simulated in a
computer" illustrates the confusion. 'work'? according to whom?
"surprisingly well"? by what criteria? The tacit assumption is that the
model's thus implemented on a computer will/can 'behave'
indistinguishably from the real thing, when what you are observing is a
model of the real thing, not the real thing.
*<HERE> *If you targeting AGI with a benchmark/target of human intellect
or problem solving skills, then the claim made on any/all models is that
models can attain that goal. A computer implements a model. To make a
claim that a model completely captures the reality upon which it was
based, you need to have a solid theory of the relationships between
models and reality that is not wishful thinking or assumption, but solid
science. Here's where you run into the problematic issue that basic
physical sciences have with models.
There's a boundary to cross - when you claim to have access to human
level intellect - then you are demanding a equivalence with a real
human, not a model of a human.
=======Colin said======>
I agree with your :
"/At the other end of things, physicists are increasingly viewing
physical reality as a computation, and thus the science of computation
(and communication which is a part of it), such as information theory,
have begun to play an increasingly important role in the most basic of
all sciences./"
===ED's reply===>
We are largely on the same page here
=======Colin said======>
I disagree with:
"But the brain is not part of an eternal verity. It is the result of
the engineering of evolution. "
Unless I've missed something ... The natural evolutionary
'engineering' that has been going on has /not/ been the creation of a
MODEL (aboutness) of things - the 'engineering' has evolved the
construction of the /actual/ things. The two are not the same. The
brain is indeed 'part of an eternal verity' - it is made of natural
components operating in a fashion we attempt to model as 'laws of
nature',,,
===ED's reply===>
If you define engineering as a process that involves designing
something in the abstract --- i.e., in your "a MODEL (aboutness of
things)" --- before physically building it, you could claim evolution
is not engineering.
But if you define engineering as the designing of things (by a process
that has intelligence what ever method) to solve a set of problems or
constraints, evolution does perform engineering, and the brain was
formed by such engineering.
How can you claim the human brain is an eternal verity, since it is
only believed that it has existing in anything close to its current
form in the last 30 to 100 thousand years, and there is no guarantee
how much longer it will continue to exists. Compared to much of what
the natural sciences study, its existence appears quite fleeting.
I think this is just a terminology issue. The 'laws of nature' are the
eternal verity, to me. The dynamical output they represent - of course
that does whatever it does. The universe is an intrinsically dynamic
entity at all levels. Even the persistent expression of total randomness
is an 'eternal verity'. No real issue here.
=======Colin said======>
Anyway, for these reasons, folks who use computer models to study
human brains/consciousness will encounter some difficulty justifying,
to the basic physical sciences, claims made as to the equivalence of
the model and reality. That difficulty is fundamental and cannot be
'believed away'.
===ED's reply===>
If you attend brain science lectures and read brain science
literature, you will find that computer modeling is playing an ever
increasing role in brain science --- so this basic difficulty that you
describe largely does not exist.
I think you've missed the actual point at hand for the reasons detailed
*<HERE>*.
=======Colin said======>
The intelligence originates in the brain. AGI and brain science must
be literally joined at the hip or the AGI enterprise is arguably
scientifically impoverished wishful thinking.
===ED's reply===>
I don't know what you mean by "joined at the hip," but I think it is
being overly anthropomorphic to think an artificial mind has to
slavishly model a human brain to have great power and worth.
But I do think it would probably have to accomplish some of the same
general functions, such as automatic pattern learning, credit
assignment, attention control, etc.
Ed Porter
We are all enthusiastically intent on creating artificial entities with
some kind of usefulness (=great power and worth). However, AGI is
Artificial *General* Intelligence, seeks to create power and worth
through a claim that '/general intelligence/' has been delivered. This
is not merely the "same general functions"; it is actual general
intelligence. The statement "A /model/ of general intelligence" is
oxymoronic. If you can deliver general intelligence then you are not
delivering a model of it, you are delivering /actual/ general
intelligence. To use models as a basis for it you need to have a
scientific basis for a claim that the models that have been used to
implement the AGI can (in theory) deliver identical behaviour = general
intelligence. Models of a human brain could be involved. Models of
outward human behaviour could be involved. ... in any case - Each AGI-er
needs to have a cogent, scientifically based claim in respect of the
models as deliverers of the claimed outcomes - or the beliefs underlying
the AGI-er's approach have a critical weakness in the eyes of science.
I don't think there's any real issue here. Mostly semantics being mixed
a bit.
Gotta get back to xmas! Yuletide stuff to you.
Colin
-------------------------------------------
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=123753653-47f84b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
