On 24 May 2015 at 17:40, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote: > > I really like this argument, even though I once came up with a (bad) > attempt to refute it. I wish it received more attention because it does > cast quite a penetrating light on the issue. What you're suggesting is > effectively the cache pattern in computer programming, where we trade > memory resources for computational resources. Instead of repeating a > resource-intensive computation, we store the inputs and outputs for later > regurgitation. The cached results 'store' intelligence in an analogous way > to the storage of energy as potential energy. >
Another valid comparison, in my opinion, is the storage of "intelligence" in DNA. Instinctive behaviour coded in DNA is effectively substituting a lookup table for "work-it-out-on-the-fly" type intelligence. > We effectively flatten out time (the computational process) into the > spatial dimension (memory). The cache pattern does not allow us to cheat > the law that intelligent work must be done in order to produce intelligent > results, it merely allows us to do that work at a time that suits us. The > intelligence has been transferred into the spatial relationships built into > the table, intelligent relationships we can only discover by doing the > computations. The lookup table is useless without its index. > It's also akin to the MGA, where subsequent re-running of the original computation fails to add anything to it (like more consciousness). > So what your thought experiment points out is pretty fascinating: that > intelligence can be manifested spatially as well as temporally, contrary to > our common-sense intuition, and that the intelligence of a machine does not > have to be in real time. That actually supports the MGA if anything - > because computations are abstractions outside of time and space. We should > not forget that the memory resources required to duplicate any kind of > intelligent computer would be absolutely enormous, and the lookup table, > although structurally simple, would embody just a vast amount of > computational intelligence. > > I think you anticipated my comment above but I'm not 100% sure if we're saying the same thing so I'll let it stand, just in case we aren't :-) -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
