On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:09 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 4/4/2013 3:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then shouldn't a powerful computer be able to quickly deduce the >>>>> winning >>>>> Arimaa mappings? >>>> >>>> >>>> You're making the same mistake as John Clark, confusing the physical >>>> computer with the algorithm. Powerful computers don't help us if we >>>> don't >>>> have the right algorithm. The central mystery of AI, in my opinion, is >>>> why >>>> on earth haven't we found a general learning algorithm yet. Either it's >>>> too >>>> complex for our monkey brains, or you're right that computation is not >>>> the >>>> whole story. I believe in the former, but not I'm not sure, of course. >>>> Notice that I'm talking about generic intelligence, not consciousness, >>>> which >>>> I strongly believe to be two distinct phenomena. >>>> >>> >>> Another point toward Telmo's suspicion that learning is complex: >>> >>> If learning and thinking intelligently at a human level were >>> computationally >>> easy, biology wouldn't have evolved to use trillions of synapses. The >>> brain >>> is very expensive metabolically (using 20 - 25% of the total body's >>> energy, >>> about 100 Watts). If so many neurons were not needed to do what we do, >>> natural selection would have selected those humans with fewer neurons and >>> reduced food requirements. >> >> Yes but one can imagine a situation where there is a simple >> (sufficiently-)general purpose algorithm that needs some place where >> to store memories and everything it has learned. In this case, we >> could implement such an algorithm in one of our puny laptops and get >> some results, and then just ride what's left of Moore's law all the >> way to the singularity. We don't know of any such algorithm. > > > But it doesn't follow from human brain complexity that no such algorithm > exists. Evolution doesn't necessarily do things efficiently. Because it > can't start-over, it always depends on modification of what already works. > But I think there are other theoretical and evolutionary reasons that would > limit the scope of general intelligence. Just to take an example, > mathematics is very hard for a lot of people. Mathematical thinking is not > something that has been evolutionarily useful until recent times (and maybe > not even now).
Agreed. What puzzles me the most is not that evolution hasn't found it (although we're not sure, there's a lot we don't know about the brain still). It's that the swarm of smart people that have been looking for it haven't found it. I still have some hope that it's simple but highly counter-intuitive. Telmo. > > Brent > > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
