2012/5/29 Colin Geoffrey Hales <cgha...@unimelb.edu.au>

>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason Resch
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 29 May 2012 3:45 PM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Church Turing be dammed.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales <
> cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote:****
>
> Here's a story I just wrote. I'll get it published in due course.
> Just posted it to the FoR list, thought you might appreciate the
> sentiments....
>
> ========================================================
> It's 100,000 BCE. You are a politically correct caveperson. You want
> dinner. The cooling body of the dead thing at your feet seems to be your
> option. You have fire back at camp. That'll make it palatable. The fire is
> kept alive by the fire-warden of your tribe. None of you have a clue what
> it is, but it makes the food edible and you don't care.
>
> It's 1700ish AD. You are a French scientist called Lavoisier. You have
> just worked out that burning adds oxygen to the fuel. You have killed off
> an eternity of dogma involving a non-existent substance called phlogiston.
> You will not be popular, but the facts speak for you. You are happy with
> your day's work. You go to the kitchen and cook your fine pheasant meal.
> You realise that oxidation never had to figure in your understanding of how
> to make dinner. Food for thought is your dessert.
>
> It is 2005 and you are designing a furnace. You use COMSOL Multiphysics on
> your supercomputer. You modify the gas jet configuration and the flames
> finally get the dead pocket in the corner up to temperature. The toilet
> bowls will be well cooked here, you think to yourself. If you suggested to
> your project leader that the project was finished she would think you are
> insane. Later, in commissioning your furnace, a red hot toilet bowl is the
> target of your optical pyrometer. The fierceness of the furnace is palpable
> and you're glad you're not the toilet bowl. The computation of the physics
> of fire and the physics of fire are, thankfully, not the same thing - that
> fact has made your job a lot easier, but you cannot compute yourself a
> toilet bowl. A fact made more real shortly afterwards in the bathroom.
>
> It is the early 20th century and you are a 'Wright Brother'. You think you
> can make a contraption fly. Your inspiration is birds. You experiment with
> shaped wood, paper and canvas in a makeshift wind tunnel. You figure out
> that certain shapes seems to drag less and lift more. Eventually you flew a
> few feet. And you have absolutely no clue about the microscopic physics of
> flight.
>
> It is a hundred years later and you are a trainee pilot doing 'touch and
> go' landings in a simulator. The physics of flight is in the massive
> computer system running the simulator. Just for fun you stall your jetliner
> and crash it into a local shopping mall. Today you have flown 146, 341 km.
> As you leave the simulator, you remind yourself that the physics of flight
> in the computer and flight itself are not the same thing, and that nobody
> died today.
>
> No-one ever needed a theory of combustion prior to cooking dinner with it.
> We cooked dinner and then we eventually learned a theory of combustion.
>
> No-one needed the deep details of flight physics to work out how to fly.
> We few, then we figured out how the physics of flight worked.
>
> This is the story of the growth of scientific knowledge of the natural
> world. It has been this way for thousands of years. Any one of us could
> think of a hundred examples of exactly this kind of process. In a modern
> world of computing and physics, never before have we had more power to
> examine in detail, whatever are the objects of our study. And in each and
> every case, if anyone told you that a computed model of the natural world
> and the natural world are literally the same thing, you'd brand them daft
> or deluded and probably not entertain their contribution as having any
> value.
>
> Well almost. There's one special place where not only is that very
> delusion practised on a massive scale, if you question the behaviour, you
> are suddenly confronted with a generationally backed systematic raft of
> unjustified excuses, perhaps 'policies'?, handed from mentor to novice with
> such unquestioning faith that entire scientific disciplines are enrolled in
> the delusion.
>
> Q. What scientific discipline could this be?
>
> A. The 'science' of artificial intelligence.
>
> It is something to behold. Here, for the first time in history, you find
> people that look at the only example of natural general intelligence - you,
> the human reading this - accept a model of a brain, put it in a computer
> and then expect the result to be a brain. This is done without a shred of
> known physical law, in spite of thousands of years of contrary experience,
> and despite decades of abject failure to achieve the sacred goal of an
> artificial intelligence like us.
>
> This belief system is truly bizarre. It is exactly like the cave person
> drawing a picture of a flame on a rock and then expecting it to cook
> dinner. It is exactly like getting into a flight simulator, flying it to
> Paris and then expecting to get out and have dinner on the banks of the
> Seine. It is exactly like expecting your computer simulated furnace
> roasting you a toilet bowl.
>
> Think about it. If there was no difference between a computed physics
> model of fire and fire, then why doesn't the computer burst into flames? If
> there was no difference between a computed model of flight and flight, then
> why doesn't the computer leap up and fly? These things don't happen! Not
> only that, any computer scientist would say you were nuts to believe it to
> be a possibility. Then that same computer scientist will then got back to
> their desk, sit down and believe that their computer program can be brain
> physics.
>
> Now I am all about creating real artificial general intelligence. Call me
> crazy, but I find I am unique in the entire world. I am set about literally
> building artificial inorganic brain tissue. Like the Wright Bros built
> artificial flight. Like the caveperson built artificial fire. I will build
> artificial cognition. There will be no computing. There will be the physics
> of cognition.
>
> Ay now here's the rub.
>
> When I go about my business of organising and researching my artificial
> brain tissue I get questioned about my weird approach. I find that I am the
> one that has to justify my position! For the first time in history a
> completely systemic delusion about the relation between reality and
> computing is assumed by legions of scientists without question, and who
> fail constantly to achieve the goal for clearly obvious reasons..... _and I
> am the one that has to justify my approach_? If I have to listen to another
> deferral to the Church-Turing Thesis (100% right and 100% irrelevant) I
> will SCREAM! Aaaaiiiiieeeeeiiiiuuuuaaaaaaarrrrgggggh!
>
> I am not saying artificial general intelligence is impossible or even
> hard. I am simply suggesting that maybe the route toward it is through
> (shock horror) using the physics of cognition (brain material). Somebody
> out there..... please? Can there please be someone out there who sees this
> half century of computer science weirdness in 100,000 years of sanity?
> Please? Anyone?
> ==================================================================
>
> By Colin Hales
>
> Natural physics is a computation. Fine.
>
> But a computed natural physics model is NOT the natural physics....it is
> the natural physics of a computer.****
>
>
>
> Colin,
>
> I recently read the following excerpt from "The Singularity is Near" on
> page 454:
>
> "The basis of the strong (Church-Turing thesis) is that problems that are
> not solvable on a Turing Machine cannot be solved by human thought,
> either.  The basis of this thesis is that human thought is performed by the
> human brain (with some influence by the body), that the human brain (and
> body) comprises matter and energy, that matter and energy follow natural
> laws, that these laws are describable in mathematical terms, and that
> mathematics can be simulated to any degree of precision by algorithms.
> Therefore there exist algorithms that can simulate human thought.  The
> strong version of the Church-Turing thesis postulates an essential
> equivalence between what a human can think or know, and what is computable."
>
> So which of the following four link(s) in the logical chain do you take
> issue with?
>
> A. human brain (and body) comprises matter and energy
> B. that matter and energy follow natural laws,
> C. that these laws are describable in mathematical terms
> D. that mathematics can be simulated to any degree of precision by
> algorithms
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
>  ========================================****
>
> Hi Jason,****
>
> Brain physics is there to cognise the (external) world. You do not know
> the external world.****
>
> Your brain is there to apprehend it. The physics of the brain inherits
> properties of the (unknown) external world. This is natural cognition.
> Therefore you have no model to compute. Game over.****
>
> ** **
>
> If you have _*everything*_ in your model (external world included), then
> you can simulate it. But you don’t.
>

You don't need it, because we don't have to simulate the world we have to
interface with it, we simulate consciousness not the world.

Quentin


> So you can’t simulate it. C-T Thesis is 100% right _but 100% *irrelevant*to 
> the process at hand: encountering the unknown.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> The C-T Thesis is irrelevant, so you need to get a better argument from
> somewhere and start to answer some of the points in my story: ****
>
> ** **
>
> Q. Why doesn’t a computed model of fire burst into flames?****
>
> ** **
>
> This should the natural expectation by anyone that thinks a computed model
> of cognition physics is cognition. You should be expected answer this.
> Until this is answered I have no need to justify my position on building
> AGI. That is what my story is about. I am not assuming an irrelevant
> principle or that I know how cognition works. I will build cognition
> physics and then learn how it works using it. Like we normally do. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I don’t know how computer science got to the state it is in, but it’s got
> to stop. In this one special area it has done us a disservice.****
>
> ** **
>
> This is my answer to everyone. I know all I’ll get is the usual party
> lines. Lavoisier had his phlogiston. I’ve got computationalism. Lucky me.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cya!****
>
> ** **
>
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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