On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales <
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *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.****
>
>
> 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 I understand this correctly, your point is that we don't understand the
physics and chemistry that is important in the brain?  Assuming this is the
case, it would be only a temporary barrier, not a permanent reason that
prohibits AI in practice.

There are also reasons to believe we already understand the mechanisms of
neurons to a sufficient degree to simulate them.  There are numerous
instances where computer simulated neurons apparently behaved in the same
ways as biological neurons have been observed to.  If you're interested I
can dig up the references.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> If you have _*everything*_ in your model (external world included), then
> you can simulate it. But you don’t. So you can’t simulate it.
>

Would you stop behaving intelligently if the gravity and light from
Andromeda stopped reaching us?  If not, is _everything_ truly required?


> C-T Thesis is 100% right _but 100% *irrelevant* to the process at hand:
> encountering the unknown.
>

It is not irrelevant in the theoretical sense.  It implies: "_If_ we knew
what algorithms to use, we could implement human-level intelligence in a
computer."  Do you agree with this?



> ****
>
> ** **
>
> 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?
>


If this question is a serious, it indicates to me that you might not
understand what a computers is.  If its not serious, why ask it?

There is a burst of flames (in the computed model).  Just as in a computed
model of a brain, there will be intelligence within the model.  We can peer
into the model to obtain the results of the intelligent behavior, as
intelligent behavior can be represented as information.

Similarly we can peer into the model of the fire to obtain an understanding
of what happened during the combustion and see all the by-products.  What
we cannot do, is peer into a simulated model of fire to obtain the
byproducts of the combustion.  Nor can we peer into the model of the
simulated brain and extract neurotransmitters or blood vessels.

To me, this "fire argument" is as empty as saying "We can't take physical
objects from our dreams with us into our waking life.  Therefore we cannot
dream."



> ****
>
> ** **
>
> 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.
>

What will you build them out of?  Biological neurons, or something else?
What theory will you use to guide your pursuit, or will you, like Edison,
try hundreds or thousands of different materials until you find one that
works?


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> 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.
>

-- 
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