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

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:04 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Steven,

By structure,  I assume that you mean something along the lines of
https://www.createspace.com/Preview/1137409

As I said before, I think it's an interesting hypothesis.  I would put
in the same category as the Penrose-Hameroff hypothesis.  I'll wait
and see, but I wouldn't bet on it without a lot more evidence.

I'll take this as a positive note that, at least, you are thinking about it. I'll try not to be offended that you think my work in the same category as Penrose-Hameroff. Superficially, they have gravitation and biophysics in common, but beyond this very superficial statement there is nothing at all that relates them. 

It's "new," after some consideration I hope that you will find the argument well reasoned and there is much evidence to support it, both from your own domain and that of biophysics.

 

I don't know what you mean by "connectionist".  But in my negative
remarks about Jeff H, I hope you noticed that artificial neural
networks are a version that I think (a) is useful for a limited
range of applications, but (b) is not on the road to "strong AI"
or even advanced applications of ordinary AI.

Yes, I understand that and I agree with your analysis. My point is only that we need to think in non-local terms; i.e., initiating ion-exchange across plastic structural deformations (with new response and motor potentials) in which sense and response may be considered as "shapes" upon the surface of flexible closed structure. And not in terms of point to point "communications."

 

As for neuroscience, I believe that there's a continuum from
protozoa (such as paramecia) to bilateral worms around 600 million
years ago, the split between protostomia (insects, molluscs, etc.)
and deuterostomia (vertebrates such as fish and humans). I agree with
many neuroscientists who believe that versions of consciousness are
present at least as early as fish and insects.  I doubt that
consciousness is a "problem" that needs any special explanation.

I stay away from the "c" word, but I believe that you are simply wrong to assume, if by your use of it you mean, that sense or "feeling" is a "problem" that does not require special explanation. It cannot simply "be passively there," there is something that it must do, a role that it must play that may be physically characterized mathematically.

As for strong AI, I really don't know whether digital computers
can ever be intelligent at a human level.  But as I said in the
micai.pdf slides, they can do much better than current AI systems.

The important point of my work is that there are hard limits that the current methodologies are confronted by. These indicate a NO-GO result for human-level intelligence upon modern machines. In particular, there is no possible solution for general recognition (essentially "free" in biology) and decision making across large scale structures.

 

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)