Hi,
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? J Cheers Colin -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
