On 11 Jul 2011, at 02:55, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:


I'm sorry Bruno, but you are so intractably mired in your own
presuppositions that you'll never get this.

Rhetoric.



Clearly you have never been
roughly and uncompromisingly educated by the natural world, as I have as
an engineer.

Rhetoric.



Consider the statement "I am machine". This is totally
loaded with presupposition. Like agreeing on the meaning of the word
"machine" has any bearing on the problem at hand. No amount of playing
about with any words like 'machine' or 'computation' has any relevance
to the problem.

"I am machine" is not loaded with presupposition. It *is* the presupposition that I study the consequences of. It is also ambiguous, and that is why I make it clearer: by Church thesis + the existence of a level such that .... "yes doctor".






I choose to have nothing to do with any of it. I choose to presuppose
nothing.

This is an empirical matter.

So you presuppose a empirical world. Me too. But you suppose that it is basic or primitive. That is Aristotle theology, and I have explained this in contradiction with the comp. hyp. But then you criticize the comp. hyp., and that makes you coherent, except that you are using it at some other level.




In the entire history of technology development, the artificial
instantiation of a natural phenomenon, the actual natural phenomenon was
retained. FIRE, WHEEL/TERRESTRIAL TRANSPORT, FLIGHT etc etc etc....

Except once

...In the artificial instantiation of COGNITION, the 100% chosen
technique is to throw the physics away...replacing it with the physics
(atoms) of a computer, yet the natural phenomenon is still expected. No amount of discussion about abstract meanings of words like "machine" and
the logical conclusions reached in unproven, irrelevant presupposed
domains of abstractions of physics changes that.

Read the papers, and ask question. Here you just witness your prejudices, and your absence of study.




Where it once may have been plausible that 'information' manipulation
might be a useful abstraction in AGI, this is now gone.

?



Empirically.
This is because the EM fields are no longer epiphenomenal. They have an
active role.

EM are Turing emulable. You just make the level lower. So, unless you make precise that you believe in
- a non Turing emulable component in the EM
- different from the what is already make non Turing emulable by comp,
you are just begging the question.




Eliminate/replace them with noise like a computer and you
eliminate cognition like computed flame is not flame.

Right. But irrelevant.




Anastassiou, C. A., Perin, R., Markram, H., & Koch, C. (2011). Ephaptic
coupling of cortical neurons. Nature Neuroscience, 14(2), 217-223.

Frohlich, F., & McCormick, D. A. (2010). Endogenous Electric Fields May
Guide Neocortical Network Activity. NEURON, 67(1), 129-143.

The physics of cognition itself is a little less obvious than the
physics of flames and flight. This does not entail that it is any more
negligible in artificial cognition than flight physics was to artificial
flying.

This new reality does not mean that an AGI cannot be computational! What
it means is that you will never prove what can be replaced by
computation without artificially building the physics of cognition and
then seeing what can be computed without eliminating/degrading the
cognition.

Your use of the term physics is like the use of God in gap explanation.




A theory of combustion resulted from playing with combustion. Not the
other way around.
A theory of flight resulted from flying. Not the other way around.
A theory of cognition and general intelligence will result from building
artificial general intelligence, not the other way around.

We now know what is going on in a brain to the point of being able to
replicate it.

How could we know?



Semiconductor chip feature sizes approach those of the
brain's feature sizes (insofar as they are cognition-relevant). The game
has changed because of empirical outcomes. The relative importance of
the contributors to cognition have changed. In the last year.

Such changes happen from time to time. I for one am really enthused.

Nice. But unless you believe in non Turing emulable mind, the comp's consequence continue to follow. The UD reasoning does not depend on the level of substitution, so none of the papers you mention change the fact that the physical science/ reality is a consequence of arithmetic, once comp is assumed.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

Reply via email to