Read all your comments....cutting/snipping to the chase...

 

[Jason ]
Your belief that AGI is impossible to achieve through computers depends
on at least one of the following propositions being true:
1. Accurate simulation of the chemistry or physics underlying the brain
is impossible
2. Human intelligence is something beyond the behaviors manifested by
the brain
Which one(s) do you think is/are correct and why? 


Thanks,

Jason

 

[Colin] 

I think you've misunderstood the position in ways that I suspect are
widespread...

 

1) simulation of the chemistry or physics underlying the brain is
impossible

It's quite possible, just irrelevant! 'Chemistry' and 'physics' are
terms for models of the natural world used to describe how natural
processes appear to an observer inside the universe. You can simulate
(compute physics/chem. models) until you turn blue, and be as right as
you want: all you will do is predict how the universe appears to an
observer.

 

This has nothing to do with creating  artificial intelligence. 

 

Natural intelligence is a product of the actual natural world, and is
not a simulation. Logic dictates that, just like the wheel, fire, steam
power, light and flight, artificial cognition involves the actual
natural processes found in brains. This is not a physics model of the
brain implemented in any sense of the word. Artificial cognition will be
artificial in the same way that artificial light is light. Literally. In
brains we know there are action potentials coupling/resonating with a
large unified EM field system, poised on/around the cusp of an unstable
equilibrium. So real artificial cognition will have, you guessed it,
action potential coupling resonating with a large unified EM field
system, poised on/around the cusp of an unstable equilibrium. NOT a
model of it computed on something. Such inorganic cognition will
literally have an EEG signature like humans. If you want artificially
instantiated fire you must provide fuel, oxygen and heat/spark. In the
same way, if you want artificial cognition you must provide equivalent
minimal set of necessary physical ingredients.

 

 

2. Human intelligence is something beyond the behaviors manifested by
the brain
This sounds very strange to me. Human intelligence (an ability to
observe and produce the models called 'physics and chemistry') resulted
from the natural processes (as apparent to us) described by us as
physics and chemistry, not the models called physics & chemistry. It's
confusingly self-referential...but logically sound.

 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The fact that you posed the choices the way you did indicates a profound
confusion of natural processes with computed models of natural
processes. The process of artificial cognition that uses natural
processes in an artificial context is called 'brain tissue replication'.
In replication there is no computing and no simulation. This is the way
to explore/understand and develop artificial cognition.... in exactly
the way we used artificial flight to figure out the physics of flight.
We FLEW. We did not examine a physics model of flying (we didn't have
one at the time!). Does a computed physics model of flight fly? NO. Does
a computed physics model of combustion burn? NO. Is a computed physics
model of a hurricane a hurricane? NO. 

 

So how can a computed physics model of cognition be cognition?

 

I hope you can see the distinction I am trying to make clear.
Replication is not simulation.

 

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.

Reply via email to