On Thu, May 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > Things like Hebbian learning and artificial models of neurons have > explanatory power
Yes but Donald Hebb didn't just say "it happens because of emergence", he explained exactly how these higher level laws worked. >> if you just wanted to know how to make a AI you could reverse engineer > a human brain, you might not understand why your creation worked but that > wouldn't stop it from working. > > > I think it's more feasible to try to reverse-engineer the morphogenetic > algorithms encoded in the DNA. I think that would be much much more difficult and also unnecessary. To make a AI by reverse engineering it would be enough to have a map of how information flows in the brain, every detail about the physical structure of that organ would not be needed to make a electronic analog that behaves in a intelligent way. And of course your approach would be useless for uploading. > We would still not understand the creation, It doesn't matter it would still work, and because the creation's mind would operate several hundred million times faster than ours it might understand much better than we do. > I, for example, love David Lynch's films By far Lynch's best was his first and was perhaps the strangest movie ever made, his 1977 masterpiece "Eraserhead". > I believe it is likely that consciousness is the fundamental stuff, > If so then it is silly to ask what consciousness is made of or to expect to see a theory of consciousness. > Evolution provides a compelling explanation for how intelligence > originated, Yes. > but it does not provide any explanation for how consciousness originated, So if consciousness is not a byproduct of intelligence then Darwin was wrong. > so it is perfectly reasonable to be agnostic on the origin of > consciousness while accepting Darwinism. For example, someone might come up > with a theory that is more general than evolution and also explains why > evolution is a good approximation for a subset of reality You know you're in trouble when you've got to conjurer up new laws of science that do absolutely nothing but shoehorn reality into your preexisting ideas. So there is a pervasive new field in physics that scours every square inch of space looking for intelligence and when it finds it and its soft and squishy like a human brain it confers consciousness onto it but if its hard and metallic like a computer it does not. Pathetic! This sort of argument would convince nobody who didn't already want to be convinced. John K Clark -- 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.
