I'm responding to Jesse at the moment... but to round out...every now 
and then I give myself the luxury of kcicking the received view in the 
butt ... to try and get it to wake up..... I'll go away shortly.... :-)

Deep blue doesn't know it's a chess program, doesn't know what chess is, 
doesn't know its playing anything or anything else... it's just symbols 
moving about in an abstracted  chunk of matter in a way that that only 
makes sense in the eyes of a human supervisor. Charge hurtling about in 
packets inside the chips.

Yes, there will be super-superdoopermega-computing of unbelievable 
capability....(abtract symbol manipulation)....they will be capable of 
prodigious computational feats... but will have the intelligence of a 
doorstop forever when compared to humans in this one very special 
behaviour - scientific behaviour - the achilles heel of all COMP 
arguments....these superdooper COMPs will never be able to do science, 
nor solve everyday problems the same way humans do. It is in this one 
single behaviour I find great clarity and the logical weakness needed to 
kill COMP off for good.

There will always be sub-standard behaviour until the FULL physics is 
incorporated in the chips. When they can do science - then they'll be 
like us.....At the moment more than 50% of the physics of cognition is 
thrown away and NONE of that missing element is addressed by COMP models 
of intellect except by unjustified assumption that COMP is true. 
Fundamental physics is thrown away when the computer's substrate is 
substituted for the real thing (see the Jesse email). Such COMP entities 
can be predicted right now to NEVER be scientists. This is a testable 
proposition based on real physics, not through the adoption of  
meta-beliefs about the role of abstract computation in the universe. 
Just because the universe appears to behave 'as-if' all is abstract 
computation does not entail that it literally be so. That it continues 
to be treated so is a serious error sustained by maths and physics  - 
which is currently behaving religiously - mathematics rapture - where 
the maths is explored instead of the natural world - where the 
interpretations of the nuances of abstract mathematical appearances are 
preferred over the real natural reality we inhabit. Physics is currently 
trapped in a systematically religious mode of operation that would make 
our 19th century forbears cringe in horror.

COMP is dead.

Bingsjord proclaimed it dead here: Bringsjord, S. (1999), 'The Zombie 
Attack on the Computational Conception of Mind'. Philosophy and 
Phenomenological Research LIX(1):pp. 41-69. To this and the No Free 
Lunch Theorem I would like to add my arguments to the eulogy. I have 2 
completely independent refutations, both different to Bringsjord's,  in 
journal review as we speak.

*How many refutations will it take before it dies and everyone gets over 

colin (back to Jesse and the closer on COMP)

> On Sep 2, 1:56 pm, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>> */Eliezer/*'s hubris about a Bayesian approach to intelligence is
>> nothing more than the usual 'metabelief' about a mathematics... or about
>> computation... meant in the sense that "cognition is computation", where
>> computation is done BY the universe (with the material of the universe
>> used to manipulate abstract symbols)
>> </search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Eliezer+Yudkowsky&sp­ell=1>.....
>> *You don't have to work so hard to walk away from that approach...*
> Hi Colin,
> The chess computer 'Deep Blue' was computational, and could play chess
> better than the (then) chess world champion, Gary Kasparov.  But that
> didn't mean that the programmers understood all the chess, or all the
> chess had already been played.  So I don't think your argument is a
> good one.  You can't rebut Yudkowsy's approach as easily as that ;)
> But I kind of understand your sentiment, and agree that science can't
> (and shouldn't be) reduced to mere Bayesian probability shuffling.
> There are aesthetic judgements involved in science, and I don't think
> any precise mathematical definition of these aesthetic notions is
> possible, as Bruno has already opined.    Yudkowsky's excessive faith
> in Bayesian Induction is definitely his weakness.  But that doesn't
> mean we can't make a computational super-intelligence.
> Cheers
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to