On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:09 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/4/2013 3:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then shouldn't a powerful computer be able to quickly deduce the >>>>> winning >>>>> Arimaa mappings? >>>> >>>> >>>> You're making the same mistake as John Clark, confusing the physical >>>> computer with the algorithm. Powerful computers don't help us if we >>>> don't >>>> have the right algorithm. The central mystery of AI, in my opinion, is >>>> why >>>> on earth haven't we found a general learning algorithm yet. Either it's >>>> too >>>> complex for our monkey brains, or you're right that computation is not >>>> the >>>> whole story. I believe in the former, but not I'm not sure, of course. >>>> Notice that I'm talking about generic intelligence, not consciousness, >>>> which >>>> I strongly believe to be two distinct phenomena. >>>> >>> >>> Another point toward Telmo's suspicion that learning is complex: >>> >>> If learning and thinking intelligently at a human level were >>> computationally >>> easy, biology wouldn't have evolved to use trillions of synapses. The >>> brain >>> is very expensive metabolically (using 20 - 25% of the total body's >>> energy, >>> about 100 Watts). If so many neurons were not needed to do what we do, >>> natural selection would have selected those humans with fewer neurons and >>> reduced food requirements. >> >> Yes but one can imagine a situation where there is a simple >> (sufficiently-)general purpose algorithm that needs some place where >> to store memories and everything it has learned. In this case, we >> could implement such an algorithm in one of our puny laptops and get >> some results, and then just ride what's left of Moore's law all the >> way to the singularity. We don't know of any such algorithm. > > > But it doesn't follow from human brain complexity that no such algorithm > exists. Evolution doesn't necessarily do things efficiently. Because it > can't start-over, it always depends on modification of what already works. > But I think there are other theoretical and evolutionary reasons that would > limit the scope of general intelligence. Just to take an example, > mathematics is very hard for a lot of people. Mathematical thinking is not > something that has been evolutionarily useful until recent times (and maybe > not even now).
Agreed. What puzzles me the most is not that evolution hasn't found it (although we're not sure, there's a lot we don't know about the brain still). It's that the swarm of smart people that have been looking for it haven't found it. I still have some hope that it's simple but highly counter-intuitive. Telmo. > > Brent > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
