You have missed the point. When you feel pain in your hand your are
feeling it because the physics of specific specialized small regions of
the cranial central nervous system are doing things. This includes (1)
action potentials mutually resonating with (2) a gigantic EM field
system in extremely complex ways. Exactly how and why this specific
arrangement of atoms and behaviour delivers it is irrelevant. It is
enough to know that it does. More than that it is the ONLY example of
natural cognition we have.


The whole point of this argument is that unlike any other time in the
history of science, we are expecting the particular physics (that we
know delivers  cognition) can be totally replaced (by the physics of a
computer or even worse, a non-existent Turing machine) , yet still
result in cognition. 

It's not the "totally" that is the problem.  Bruno asks if you can
replace a part of a brain with something that does the same computation
(at some level) and have no effect on the conscious (or unconscious)
life of that person.  This certainly seems plausible.  But it relies on
the remaining world to continue interacting with that person.  So in his
idea of replacing physics with computation he has to suppose replacing
all of the brain plus everything that interacts with the brain.  In
other words a simulation of the person(s) and the universe.  Then within
the simulation EM fields are computed and supply computed illumination
to computed eyes and brains.  He invites us to consider all this
computation done by a universal dovetailer, a computer which also
computes all possible computable universes as it goes.  But to me it
seems a great leap from computing what a piece (or even all) of a brain
does to computing a whole (quantum) universe.  I'm not at all sure that
the universe is computable; and it's certainly a different question than
whether I would say yes to the doctor.

This entire scenario has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
Bruno is talking about the universe AS abstract computation. Ontology. I
am talking about a completely different area: the computation of
descriptions of a universe; descriptions  compiled  by observers within
it called 'laws of nature'. 


This is the main problem. We are speaking at cross purposes. Computation
by computers made of bits of our universe is not the same is describing
of a universe of ontological primitives interacting. I find the latter
really interesting, but completely irrelevant to the task at hand, which
is to create artificial cognition using the real world of humans and the
stuff they are made of. 


If you believe that computed physics equations is indistinguishable from
physics, to the point that a computed model of the physics of cognition
is cognition, then why don't you expect a computed model of combustion
physics to burst into flames and replace your cooker? Why can't you go
to work in a computed model of a car that spontaneously springs into
your life? Why don't you expect to be able to light your room with a
computed model of the physics of a lightbulb? Why can't you compute
Maxwell's equations and create a power station?

You can within a simulation.


At last, someone takes the magical step. This is the problem writ-large.
What you are saying, in effect, is that computation about X is only some
kind of simulation of X. My whole point is that I do not want a
simulation of X. I want an X. Like artificial fire is still fire. Like
artificial light is light. Like artificial lightning is lightning.  Like
artificial cognition is cognition. Like an artificial round rollything
(wheel) is a wheel. .... like a million other artificial versions of a
natural phenomenon created by humans for millennia.


In using a computer, all the original physics is gone. Yet the 100%
expectation is (apart from yourself, apparently... or.not... we have
found the inconsistency at last)  that computers will lead to AGI is the
state of the game. Yet it involves entirely disposing of the natural
phenomenon that we know originates it. It replaces the entire physics
with the physics of a computer ... and then expects to get the natural
phenomenon out of it!


If anyone suggested, in the invention of human-originated fire, that
fire was uninvolved in the final result, but that if we al sat around
and pretended there was fire......then I would be locked up in a loony
bin for crazy engineers. Yet legions of computer scientists are doing
exactly that for artificial cognition.


Interesting, huh?











You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to