Hi Bruno et.al. Once again we have come to grief on the old conflation.
(A) You speak of a universe _AS_ computation (described _as if_ on some abstract mega-turing machine) (B) I speak of computation _OF_ laws of nature, by a computer made of natural material, where the laws of nature are those describing how it appears to an observer within. Descriptions of (A) are not the same as (B). Only if you conflate (A) and (B) can you be confused about this. Until you can see the difference you will continually find my position difficult. My proof relates to the real world of computing (B). Your position (A) can be 100% right, very interesting and 100% irrelevant to the task at hand. Whatever difficulties you and others have with this, they can be sorted out by understanding the difference between (A) and (B). Laws of nature in (A) are laws of structure. Laws in (B) are laws of appearances (to an observer). Like F = MA. This issue I have proved is EMPIRICALLY PROVEN in domain (B). The argument is OVER. You can't have it both ways. Either (1) (B)-style computing of laws of appearances of the cognition is LITERALLY cognition....In which case (B)-style computing of laws of appearance of combustion must also be LITERALLY combustion. OR (2) B)-style computing of laws of appearances of the ANYTHING is NOT LITERALLY ANYTHING, ANYWHERE and NEVER WAS. This is because computing combustion doesn't produce flames. I could encode representation in flames. SO WHAT! It's the same bunch of atoms dancing about... (table of elements). They don't know what representing is going on! What magic changes things merely because representing happens? At the same time, I would also say that the kind of computing referred to by (A) _IS_ flame. But that's not a model of flame. It's the flame. You can 'act as if' the flame is running some kind of non existent computer, but that does NOT become (B). Expectation (1) is the universal position of all AGI workers. Now that presupposition is FALSE. When neuroscience finds this out (I have a paper in already), the entire AGI community is going to be told they are not investing in AGI. They are only doing complex AI with predictable limits. Real AGI will be done by replicating the physics of cognition. I give it a year or so. Colin -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
<<winmail.dat>>
