On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:28 PM Colin Hales <col.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Rob Freeman ... > As far as my position, I think the answer is a chaos, or a complex system > element to meaningful patterns. And that's why they elude us. Chaos is also > embodied. > > C: OK let's keep it simple and focus on this. How does the following > statement sit with you as a statement of part of your perspective on > creating an artificial brain: > > "Brain tissue is the only thing current empirically known to deliver > natural general intelligence. Brains are situated in a body. The body is > situated in a host environment. However natural brains deliver intelligence > in this context, it is to be expected that an artificial brain, in the > first instance (and until it is empirically proved optional) must at least > replicate this context (embodied, embedded, situated like a natural brain). > Well, if I have to steel-man that, I would say we agree embodiment is important to cognition. But steel-man is not only agreement. It's actually important in steel-man to represent where we disagree. But do it in a way you agree with!! To attempt to steel-man the above on the points we disagree, I would say you are using embodiment to argue for a given body. Additionally, there is chaotic physics measureable in the natural brain > when it is operating normally in an awake, alert subject. Therefore, if one > is to create an artificial general intelligence, then at least initially, > the artificial brain should be based on brain tissue physics and if it is > delivering intelligence, chaotic behaviour of a similar kind should be > observed in it, and when the chaotic behaviour changes or ceases, > intelligent behaviour should be observed degraded or changed or lost in a > measurable way. Chaos is thereby prima facie, necessary in an artificial > brain, but on its own, insufficient. It is the natural brain physics-basis > of the chaos that has to be conserved until empirically proved optional." > > Is this statement clashing with you in any way? What does it get > wrong/right? > To steel-man this, my analysis of it has to be something you agree with again... I think the same thing. You are using embodiment to argue for a given body. -Rob ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tafcd787c73d24a40-Mb8e80def4e7cbb56b62bf968 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
