[ontolog-forum] A No-Go Result For Human-Level Machine Intelligence

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxx>]

My thanks to John Bottoms for his thoughtful response.

In terms of discussion of my broader work in this forum I agree that much of it is beyond the scope of our discussion - except to the degree that it represents a "No-Go Result For Human-Level Machine Intelligence" as envisioned by the Strong AI community. 

IOW, no electronic computer (or similar) built upon one of the Turing's computational models of 1936 (this includes conventional Turing machine architectures and neural networks, however built), can achieve this end for reasons that are fundamental to the world.  

The detailed reason for this argument is explored in my book and an alternative approach is presented. (i.e., "at once" holomorphic functions and hyper-functors based the biophysical dynamics of flexible closed structure).

I should add that this does not take away any of the wonder of current machines based upon Turing's models, derived from the industrial revolution. My intent is simply to set expectations correctly and to aid in the productive direction of our long-term attentions and investment.

I should add that aside from the immediate benefits to medicine of this model I expect that with the development of modern biophysics in its light that (assuming that we, as a species, survives) we will be able to construct future machines - machines that experience - with this architecture or one very much like it. 

I also anticipate that the epistemology involved in its development and the inevitable impact upon mainstream logic (integrating a form of Benjamin Peirce's "Universal Will" and providing his son's "Third") will have direct bearing upon the concerns of this forum.

With respect to the academic work of the kind put forward by Phil Jackson. It should be clear that this avenue has been more than adequately explored, and that the result is negative. Arguments can now be made, by myself and others, that adequately illustrate that it can lead us nowhere. 

I agree with the off-line commentators who have argued that the Jackson thesis is insufficiently novel to warrant the qualification of a modern doctoral thesis. In the 1990s, perhaps, when there was a surge of such attempts. This must reflect upon the awarding institution. However, the subject should certainly not be offered as a thesis today nor in future, without an obvious novelty, well-matched to its title. While nicely written and an amusing read, I see no such novelty in Jackson's work, despite its claims and justifications.   

For reference:

http://youtu.be/zF5Bp_YsZ3M

https://www.createspace.com/Preview/1137409

Regards,

Steven

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (01)