On 09 Jul 2011, at 07:07, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Down the bottom.... if you dare.... there be dragons... :-)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of Jason Resch
Sent: Sat 7/9/2011 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales <cgha...@unimelb.edu.au
> You have missed the point. When you feel pain in your hand your
> it because the physics of specific specialized small regions of
> central nervous system are doing things. This includes (1) action
> mutually resonating with (2) a gigantic EM field system in
> ways. *Exactly how and why this specific arrangement of atoms and
> behaviour delivers it is irrelevant. It is enough to know that it
> More than that it is the ONLY example of natural cognition we
> The whole point of this argument is that unlike any other time in
> history of science, we are expecting the particular physics (that
> delivers cognition) can be totally replaced (by the physics of a
> 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
> a part of a brain with something that does the same computation
> level) and have no effect on the conscious (or unconscious) life
> person. This certainly seems plausible. But it relies on the
> world to continue interacting with that person. So in his idea of
> physics with computation he has to suppose replacing all of the
> everything that interacts with the brain. In other words a
> the person(s) and the universe. Then within the simulation EM
> computed and supply computed illumination to computed eyes and
> invites us to consider all this computation done by a universal
> a computer which also computes all possible computable universes
> goes. But to me it seems a great leap from computing what a piece
> all) of a brain does to computing a whole (quantum) universe. I'm
> all sure that the universe is computable; and it's certainly a
> question than whether I would say yes to the doctor.
> *This entire scenario has nothing to do with what I am talking
> Bruno is talking about the universe AS abstract computation.
Ontology. I am
> talking about a completely different area: the computation of
> of a universe; descriptions compiled by observers within it
> of nature'. ***
> ** **
> *This is the main problem. We are speaking at cross purposes.
> 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
> interesting, but completely irrelevant to the task at hand, which
> create artificial cognition using the real world of humans and the
> they are made of. *
> If you believe that computed physics equations is
> physics, to the point that a computed model of the physics of
> cognition, then why don't you expect a computed model of
> 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?
> you expect to be able to light your room with a computed model of
> physics of a lightbulb? Why can't you compute Maxwell's equations
> a power station?****
> You can within a simulation.****
> ** **
> *At last, someone takes the magical step. This is the problem writ-
> What you are saying, in effect, is that computation about X is
> kind of simulation of X. My whole point is that I do not want a
> of X. I want an X. Like artificial fire is still fire. Like
> is light. Like artificial lightning is lightning. Like artificial
> is cognition. Like an artificial round rollything (wheel) is a
> like a million other artificial versions of a natural phenomenon
> 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
> the inconsistency at last) that computers will lead to AGI is the
> the game. Yet it involves entirely disposing of the natural
> we know originates it. It replaces the entire physics with the
physics of a
> computer ... and then expects to get the natural phenomenon out
Ultimately physics is just set of well defined rules (algorithms) and
matter and energy is just information.
It is not unreasonable to imagine that information sits at the
> physics, just as it sits at the core of a computer.
> It from bit. Otherwise put, every 'it'-every particle, every
> force, even the space-time continuum itself-derives its function,
> meaning, its very existence entirely-even if in some contexts
> indirectly-from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no
> binary choices, bits. 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every
> the physical world has at bottom-a very deep bottom, in most
> immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality
arises in the
> last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the
> equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are
> information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory
> (John Archibald Wheeler 1990: 5)
More and more information is being shown to be a critical property
universe, in entropy, the holographic principle, quantum mechanics,
laws of information carrying capacity, extreme physical information
is not unreasonable, therefore, to consider the universe has some
The ultimate description of anything is information. Information
described in terms of anything else. You might say the map is not the
territory,. but I would argue that a map that is accurate in every
detail is the territory. There would be no way for any observer to
distinguish between the two. You might consider Ockham in the
thought experiment: Imagine there are two universes, one is the
universe in which we live, another is informational representation
in math. If observers in the informational version are as conscious
and I (I know you would say they are not but stay with me) then they
also consider their universe to exist physically, there is no way
to tell one way or the other.
Now if an informational universe is shown to exist in math, what is
reason for postulating our universe is somehow different? In what
"physical" different from an "informational" one, what does being
mean and what does it add which is not already there in the identical
informational one? Everything that happens in the physical universe
happens in the informational one, they have all the same laws, and
evolution through time. What distinguishes the "informational
atom" in the informational universe from the "physical hydrogen
atom" in the
physical universe? I imagine you will say something like "It has to
physical to be real", but I have never seen a convincing argument
perhaps you could provide one?
Hi again on this fine Saturday when I should be gardening.
You can 'imagine' whatever you want about the word 'information'.
It's missing the point.
Here in the _real_ world, where 100% of AGI research is using real
computers (or hardware computation of a model eg FPGA) to implement
an AGI. That is, to implement an actual instance of cognition. The
goal is the equivalent of human cognition. I'll spell it out
properly because it seems to me, after 10 years of intense effort,
that I've finally found a simple achilles heel, where the belief
system is shown to be inconsistent. That is, there is persistence
with a belief in X in spite of empirical evidence that X is false.
Like pulling Pinocchio the puppet's strings and then really
believing it creates a real boy.
==================== EL PROOF
1) We have only 1 benchmark natural general intelligence (NGI): the
2) Specific physics exists in the brain. The physics of cognition.
This is the physics of action potential propagation (AP) resonating
with a large, unified electromagnetic (EM) field system. The
relationship between AP production to EM field production is _not_
1:1. More than one EM field is consistent with one set of AP
transmissions. Call it AP/EM physics of cognition. It's what we have.
3) In the artificial instantiation of fire by humans, the physics of
combustion is retained. In the artificial instantiation of flight by
humans, the physics of flight is retained. And so forth. Without
exception. (except in AGI!). By extension, the way to artificial
cognition is to retain the physics of cognition. AP/EM physics.
4) If computing can literally duplicate human cognition, then by
extension, computing the laws of combustion should create flames.
REAL FLAMES. That is the logical result of a belief that computing
the physics (or worse, an abstraction of it) of cognition leads to
That does not follow. Flames are not representational. Some things are
Turing emulable, and others are not.
False. You can emulate digital computations exactly. You just beg the
question. You prove your premise.
5) The computation of the physics of flames has been computed _to
death_ for decades. NO FLAMES resulted. In general, no instance of
computation of a physics model of X ever resulted in X.
In a very Popperian way, we have experimentally already falsified,
decades ago, a hypothesis that that computation can produce human
6) A claim that a computer can deliver human cognition is false. QED.
To continue to believe that a Turing-based computation of a model of
cognition is cognition is thus empirically falsified and has been
for a long time. This is GAME OVER for purely computational AGI. Not
in a formal sense, but in a technological investment sense
consistent with every other instance of technological instantiation
of a natural phenomenon. What sort of idiot would you have to be to
invest in a new kind of match, where you try to light your cigarette
with a computation of the physics of combustion ... because that is
exactly what investment in computational AGI is doing.
The AGI research community has it completely backwards. Using fire
lead to a theory of combustion. NOT the other way around. Ditto for
cognition. We do not have a theory of cognition. We will get one by
building the AP/EM physics of cognition and exploring. Just like
elsewhere, computation of models is useful. But it's NOT an instance
of cognition. It can't be. We've proved it empirically already. The
AGI community is, in some sense, researching cognition. However,
that research cannot be claimed to ever be an actual instance of NGI-
style cognition. Because of that reality, we need to re-frame
expectations and investment directions.
IMPORTANT NOTE. Your 'it's information' thinking can be completely
right and it changes nothing, because computers are not manipulating
it. They are manipulating human metaphors for information in a
'physics-independent' way. So you can retain your particular
'information-centric' view of the universe AND believe that
computers won't create cognition. The two views are quite
compatible. This is all about the correct route to knowledge and
Sweet clarity at last.
I don't know why I didn't see this argument before. I guess I'm a
bit thick. Off to the garden.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.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
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at