On Dec 4, 2007 8:38 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > [snip] > > And neither you nor anyone else has ever made a cogent argument that > > emulating the brain is the ONLY route to creating powerful AGI. The closest > > thing to such an argument that I've seen > > was given by Eric Baum in his book "What Is > > Thought?", and I note that Eric has backed away somewhat from that > > position lately. > > This is a pretty outrageous statement to make, given that you know full > well that I have done exactly that. > > You may not agree with the argument, but that is not the same as > asserting that the argument does not exist. > > Unless you were meaning "emulating the brain" in the sense of emulating > it ONLY at the low level of neural wiring, which I do not advocate.
I don't find your nor Eric's nor anyone else's argument that brain-emulation is the "golden path" very strongly convincing... However, I found Eric's argument by reference to the compressed nature of the genome, more convincing than your argument via the hypothesis of irreducible emergent complexity... Sorry if my choice of words was not adequately politic. I find your argument interesting, but it's certainly just as speculative as the various AGI theories you dismiss.... It basically rests on a big assumption, which is that the complexity of human intelligence is analytically irreducible within pragmatic computational constraints. In this sense it's less an argument than a conjectural assertion, albeit an admirably bold one. -- Ben G ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=72126612-7f96e4
