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 [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.
