On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales <
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

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

It is a little unfortunate you did not answer all of the questions.  I hope
that you will answer both questions (1) and (2) below.

> **
> [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

Question 1:

Do you believe correct behavior, in terms of the relative motions of
particles is possible to achieve in a simulation?  For example, take the
example of the millennium run.  The simulation did not produce dark matter,
but the representation of dark matter behaved like dark matter did in the
universe (in terms of relative motion).  If we can simulate accurately the
motions of particles, to predict where they will be in time T given where
they are now, then we can peek into the simulation to see what is going on.

Please answer if you agree the above is possible.  If you do not, then I do
not see how your viewpoint is consistent with the fact that we can build
simulations like the millenium run, or test aircraft designs before building
them, etc.

Question 2:

Given the above (that we can predict the motions of particles in relation to
each other) then we can extract data from the simulation to see how things
are going inside.  Much like we had to convert a large array of floating
point values representing particle positions in the Millennium simulation in
order to render a video of a fly-through.  If the only information we can
extract is the predicted particle locations, then even though the simulation
does not create EM fields or fire in this universe, we can at least
determine how the different particles will be arranged after running the

Therefore, if we simulated a brain answering a question in a standardized
test, we can peer into the simulation to determine in which bubble the
graphite particles are concentrated (from the simulated pencil, controlled
by the simulated brain in the model of particle interactions within an
entire classroom).  Therefore, we have a model which tells us what an
intelligent person would do, based purely on positions of particles in a

What is wrong with the above reasoning?  It seems to me if we have a model
that can be used to determine what an intelligence would do, then the model
could stand in for the intelligence in question.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to