Colin, The obvious thing missing from neuroscience and AGI is application of the Scientific Method.
Theory: give enough computer scientists enough keyboards and time, and they will eventually figure out or stumble on whatever it takes to have general intelligence Experiment: let the world's programmers work on this for half a century. Results: Zero, nada, nothing. Experiment failed. Time for another theory. My/Our? Theory: Use math to predict what might work to do the needed processing, physics to evaluate whether biological neurons might be capable of such things, neuroscience to see if these actually occur in biology, computer science (AGI) to simulate large systems of identified components, etc. To illustrate, we have argued in the past whether the Hall effect is significantly responsible for mutual inhibition. This micro-dispute can only exist in our current broken "system", because once a new integrated field has emerged, some bright physicist would spend a week running numbers through the equations to provide a definitive answer that we would both accept. What we seem to need here is some sort of "constitution" for people to digitally sign onto. I thoroughly expect a coming AGI disaster much like the Perceptron Winter. Maybe if we point the way to the future via competent research BEFORE the crash, we can preserve future research while these folks join the ranks of the homeless. Let's wring out any differences we might have and put this together. Thoughts? Steve On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 7:43 PM Colin Hales <col.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:48 AM Steve Richfield < > steve.richfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> There seems to be a sort of universal confusion between "computer", >> digital computer", "stored program computer", et al. >> >> My very first computer program composed rock and roll melodies on a >> Borroughs E-101. It was a plugboard programmed electromechanical digital >> computer with no stored program. >> >> It WAS a computer, though not the sort that most folks here are used to >> dealing with. >> > > I would say it was 'computation' carried out on the basis of the physics > of the plugboard components. The 'program' or 'model', like that in > analog/neuromorphic computers, is hardwired and implicit. The variability > of parameters is in the adjustability in the suite of components available > to plug together. > > My dad bought an ARP keyboard synthesiser in the 1970s. It was fantastic > fun. Same concept of plug-able interconnects. The same kind of > 'computation' done on the basis of a known set of base functions (various > oscillators and modulation techniques). Computation of a model. > > So my distinction is between 'computation' and 'computer'. By computer I > mean what ~100% of AGI folk use: Von_neumann digital. Of course this is a > very limited and poorly defined use of the word. But if you use the word > 'computer' out in the real world, to neuroscientists, for example, that is > what the word invokes. > > If you trundle over into 'neuromorphic computing' you'll see they almost > universally speak of 'computation' as 'emulation'. As if it isn't confused > enough. > > If you and I, after 70 years, can still have an identifiable mismatch in > what we mean when we use the words COMPUTATION and COMPUTER, and clear > differences can be articulated, then we have proved that the science > disciplines involved (neuroscience and computer science) have no proper, > trained, understood, consistent grip on it either. Imagine that, after 70 > years. And the entire project's goals are critically dependent on that > consistency. Use the word 'computer' in a paper. Use the word > 'computation'. Use either word in an AI/AGI paragraph and then watch the > miscommunication go rife! > > if you said 'to do AGI is to use a computer', what are you referring to? I > can build 2 AGI chips based on the brain. A) One with brain physics and B) > one with a digital computer physics computing a model of the brain physics. > Both are arguably 'computation' of some kind. Dress them both in the same > robot suit. *Which is AGI? *If that distinction in any way depends on the > difference in word meaning, the enterprise is in trouble and doesn't know > it. > > You'd think that if AGI was properly set up as a profession, there's be no > mismatch in semantics. We'd all know what the words refer to and it would > be consistent. The time for opinions is long passed. > > cheers > colin > > > > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery > options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M72d061e54a57bbc873e40d38> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-Maf164456cb9922d6540c7d40 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
