2012/5/29 Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>

>
>
> 2012/5/29 Colin Geoffrey Hales <cgha...@unimelb.edu.au>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> You always put that level confusion on the table. You could expect to have
> dinner in a virtual paris if you were in a virtual world. If you want an
> computational AI to interact with you, it must be able to control real
> world appendices that permits it to *interact* or likewise if it was in a
> virtual world, you should use a interface with this virtual world for you
> to interact.
>

For example, a "real world" robot in a "real world" car factory builds real
cars... still the program that controls the robot is *a program* 100%
computational... yet it builds real cars... how ? Simply because it has
interface with the "real world" which permits the program to handle "real
world" objects, that assembled correctly makes a car...

Quentin


>
> You can't expect level to be mixed without an interface and I don't see
> any problem with that.
>
> Quentin
>
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>



-- 
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