The argument seems wrong to me intuitively, but I'm hard-put to argue against it because the terms are so unclearly defined ... for instance I don't really know what you mean by a "visual scene" ...
I can understand that to create a form of this argument worthy of being carefully debated, would be a lot more work than writing this summary email you've given. So, I agree with your judgment not to try to extensively debate the argument in its current sketchily presented form. If you do choose to present it carefully at some point, I encourage you to begin by carefully defining all the terms involved ... otherwise it's really not possible to counter-argue in a useful way ... thx ben g On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Hi Mike, > I can give the highly abridged flow of the argument: > > !) It refutes COMP , where COMP = Turing machine-style abstract symbol > manipulation. In particular the 'digital computer' as we know it. > 2) The refutation happens in one highly specific circumstance. In being > false in that circumstance it is false as a general claim. > 3) The circumstances: If COMP is true then it should be able to implement > an artificial scientist with the following faculties: > (a) scientific behaviour (goal-delivery of a 'law of nature', an > abstraction BEHIND the appearances of the distal natural world, not merely > the report of what is there), > (b) scientific observation based on the visual scene, > (c) scientific behaviour in an encounter with radical novelty. (This is > what humans do) > > The argument's empirical knowledge is: > 1) The visual scene is visual phenomenal consciousness. A highly specified > occipital lobe deliverable. > 2) In the context of a scientific act, scientific evidence is 'contents of > phenomenal consciousness'. You can't do science without it. In the context > of this scientific act, visual P-consciousness and scientific evidence are > identities. P-consciousness is necessary but on its own is not sufficient. > Extra behaviours are needed, but these are a secondary consideration here. > > NOTE: Do not confuse "scientific observation" with the "scientific > measurement", which is a collection of causality located in the distal > external natural world. (Scientific measurement is not the same thing as > scientific evidence, in this context). The necessary feature of a visual > scene is that it operate whilst faithfully inheriting the actual causality > of the distal natural world. You cannot acquire a law of nature without this > basic need being met. > > 3) Basic physics says that it is impossible for a brain to create a visual > scene using only the inputs acquired by the peripheral stimulus received at > the retina. This is due to fundamentals of quantum degeneracy. Basically > there are an infinite number of distal external worlds that can deliver the > exact same photon impact. The transduction that occurs in the retinal > rod/cones is entirely a result of protein isomerisation. All information > about distal origins is irretievably gone. An impacting photon could have > come across the room or across the galaxy. There is no information about > origins in the transduced data in the retina. > > That established, you are then faced with a paradox: > > (i) (3) says a visual scene is impossible. > (ii) Yet the brain makes one. > (iii) To make the scene some kind of access to distal spatial relations > must be acquired as input data in addition to that from the retina. > (iv) There are only 2 places that can come from... > (a) via matter (which we already have - retinal impact at the > boundary that is the agent periphery) > (b) via space (at the boundary of the matter of the brain with space, > the biggest boundary by far). > So, the conclusion is that the brain MUST acquire the necessary data via > the spatial boundary route. You don't have to know how. You just have no > other choice. There is no third party in there to add the necessary data and > the distal world is unknown. There is literally nowhere else for the data to > come from. Matter and Space exhaust the list of options. (There is alway > magical intervention ... but I leave that to the space cadets.) > > That's probably the main novelty for the reader to to encounter. But we > are not done yet. > > Next empirical fact: > (v) When you create a turing-COMP substrate the interface with space is > completely destroyed and replaced with the randomised machinations of the > matter of the computer manipulating a model of the distal world. All actual > relationships with the real distal external world are destroyed. In that > circumstance the COMP substrate is implementing the science of an encounter > with a model, not an encounter with the actual distal natural world. > > No amount of computation can make up for that loss, because you are in a > circumstance of an intrinsically unknown distal natural world, (the novelty > of an act of scientific observation). > . > => COMP is false. > ====== > OK. There are subtleties here. > The refutation is, in effect, a result of saying you can't do it (replace a > scientist with a computer) because you can't simulate inputs. It is just the > the nature of 'inputs' has been traditionally impoverished by assumption > born merely of cross-disciplinary blindness.. Not enough quantum mechanics > or electrodynamics is done by those exposed to 'COMP' principles. > > This result, at first appearance, says "you can't simulate a scientist". > But you can! If you already know what is out there in the natural world then > you can simulate a scientific act. But you don't - by definition - you are > doing science to find out! So it's not that you can't simulate a scientist, > it is just that in order to do it you already have to know everything, so > you don't want to ... it's useless. So the words 'refutation of COMP by an > attempted COMP implementation of a scientist' have to be carefully > contrasted with the words "you can't simulate a scientist". > > The self referential use of scientific behaviour as scientific evidence has > cut logical swathes through all sorts of issues. COMP is only one of them. > My AGI benchmark and design aim is "the artificial scientist". Note also > that this result does not imply that real AGI can only be organic like us. > It means that real AGI must have new chips that fully capture all the inputs > and make use of them to acquire knowledge the way humans do. A separate > matter altogether. COMP, as an AGI designer' option, is out of the picture. > > I think this just about covers the basics. The papers are dozens of pages. > I can't condense it any more than this..I have debated this so much it's way > past its use-by date. Most of the arguments go like this: "But you CAN!...". > I am unable to defend such 'arguments from under-informed-authority' ... I > defer to the empirical reality of the situation and would prefer that it be > left to justify itself. I did not make any of it up. I merely observed. . > ...and so if you don't mind I'd rather leave the issue there. .. > > regards, > > Colin Hales > > > > Mike Tintner wrote: > >> Colin: >> >> 1) Empirical refutation of computationalism... >> >> .. interesting because the implication is that if anyone >> doing AGI lifts their finger over a keyboard thinking they can be >> directly involved in programming anything to do with the eventual >> knowledge of the creature...they have already failed. I don't know >> whether the community has internalised this yet. >> >> Colin, >> >> I'm sure Ben is right, but I'd be interested to hear the essence of your >> empirical refutation. Please externalise it so we can internalise it :) >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> agi >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
