Jason & Colin, I'm going to just try to address everything in one reply.
I agree with Colin pretty much down the line. My position assumes that worldview as axiomatic and then adds some hypotheses on top of that. Jason, your original list of questions are all predicated on the very assumption that I've challenged all along but can't seem to get you (or others) to look at. I have experienced this many many times before, so it doesn't surprise me and I can't be sure that it's even possible for a mind that is so well versed in 'right hand' logic to be able to shift into a left hand mode, even if it wanted to. I have not seen it happen yet. As Colin says, the assumption is that the logic behind the Turing machine has anything to do with the reality of the world we are modeling through it. If you make a universe based upon Turing computations alone, there is no gravity or fusion, no biological molecules, etc. There is only meaningless patterns of 1 and 0 through which we can plot out whatever abstract coordinates we with to keep track of. It means nothing to us until it is converted to physical changes which we can sense with our eyes, like ink on tape or illuminated pixels on a screen. On Aug 15, 3:06 am, Colin Geoffrey Hales <cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote: > 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 You can simulate it as far as being able to model the aspects of it's behavior that you can observe, but you can't necessarily predict that behavior over time, any more than you can predict what other people might say to you today. The chemistry and physics of the brain are partially determined by the experiences of the environment through the body, and partially determined by the sensorimotive agenda of the mind, which are both related to but not identical with the momentum and consequences of it's neurological biochemistry. All three are are woven together as an inseparable whole. > 2. Human intelligence is something beyond the behaviors manifested by > the brain Any intelligence is something beyond the behaviors of matter. It's not as if a Turing machine is squirting out omnipotent toothpaste, you are inferring that there is some world being created (metaphysically) which can be experienced somewhere else beyond the behavior of the pen and tape, motors and guides, chips and wires. > 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. Colin, here is where you can consider my idea of sensorimotive electromagnetism if you want. What really is an EM field? What is it made of and how do we know? My hypothesis is that we actually don't know, and that the so called EM field is a logical inference of causal phenomenon to which matter (organic molecules within a neuron in this case) reacts to. Instead, I think that it makes more sense as sense. A sensorimotive synchronization shared amongst molecules and cells alike (albeit in different perceptual frames of reference - PRIFs). If two or more people share a feeling and they act in synchrony, from a distance it could appear as if they are subject to an EM field which informs them from outside their bodies and exists in between their bodies when in fact the synchronization arises from within, through semantic sharing of sense. It's reproduced or imitated locally in each body as a feeling - the same feeling figuratively but separate instantiations literally in separate brains (or cells, molecules, as the case may be). All of our inferences of electromagnetism come through observing the behaviors of matter with matter. In order for EM fields to be a literal phenomenon independent of atoms, it would have to be shown that a vacuum can detect an EM event in a vacuum. That this is so problematic underscores the primitive level of our assumptions about EM. We can't not be matter and can't not use matter to detect EM so that we aren't even consciously aware that we are ascribing waves and arrows to the behavior of materials rather than just mathematical particle-waves. Like the lines radiating out of a cartoon light bulb, the radiance is a subjective experience within our PRIF as sighted humans, not literal rays of nano projectiles striking our eyes. The waveness or particleness is in the eye of the beholder because it is literally the beholder which is actively experiencing the effect. The effect is figuratively the same for each beholder within the same PRIF although locally instantiated, but outside of the PRIF, such as in lab experiments with photomultipliers, the effect is not only instantiated separately on the local level, but on the figurative level as well. A different metaphor is invoked if you are working with beholders of literal sequential events compared to organic beholders of a greater range of qualitative experience. Hence the light that we see through our eyes is not just electromagnetism, it is the sensorimotive content of our nervous system's visual sense. >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. Yes, I get this as well. Others seem reluctant to commit to it, which I see as sentimental-protectionist to the occidental perspective, and not progressive-scientific. > 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. Yes, I get this too. The model of the Krebs cycle doesn't produce anything by itself. It's just a mathematical-logical understanding (which is itself a sensorimotive experience and not a physical artifact which exists independently of our minds) Again, it is instantiated separately in each of our minds, with a degree of distortion, and is relevant only to our PRIF in relation to a biochemical level PRIF. On the level of the molecules, there is no Krebs cycle, just as the cycles of the stock market are not the actual activities of human beings doing business. > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > The fact that you posed the choices the way you did indicates a profound > confusion of natural processes with computed models of natural > processes. To my mind it is profound confusion as well, but my ACME-OMMM model predicts that it would be how it should look from the OMMM facing perspective. The mind can relate to the world as computed models too, it's just using the cognitive PRIF only instead of the full spectrum of PRIFs accessible through our perception. Such a worldview is 'black and white' relative to other perceptual modes, but it provides higher resolution of linear literal functions. In it's extreme though, it has no capacity to allow for metaphorical resonance. Which is a problem for consciousness, since it's made of metaphorical resonance of matter's interior. >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. Yep. You said it. Craig -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.