[p2p-research] is the mind a computer
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 12 01:24:36 CET 2009
Of course both of these arguments are equally specious because they do not
make argument at all. They simply define terminology in a way that is
For an argument to exist, some fact must be contested that can be tested and
validated. I cannot validate someone else's arbitrary definition whether it
be brain, innovation or abundance. One has to make a systematic set of
assertions about the meaning content of a term.
If I say a brain is not a machine or a machine is a brain, I have said
nothing. What I need to do is to assert that a brain works in such and such
a fashion that is not possible for what is reasonably classified as a
machine. Or, conversely, a machine is a brain because a machine can fulfill
all those functions feasible, in principle, by a brain.
The field in question is generally termed universal AI or now
"superintelligence." There is extensive theory from logic, programmatic and
physiological standpoints on the topic.
In general, intelligence as taken in these fields to be defined as the
ability to seek goals in diverse environments.
So far, in what I have read, there is no mathematical proof that, given
sufficient compute power, a brain could not be completely simulated given
current computer processing. It cannot yet be done. There is no theory yet
that says it cannot be done. Some may argue such theories will arise, and
they might. Some would say that the process of achieving the necessary
computer power or more efficient algorithms is inevitable. It isn't.
My own view is that there are a lot of people working on this and no one has
come up with anything too exciting about meat so far in terms of its
uniqueness. On the other hand, there is no capacity like a brain system
currently on the drawing boards. A number of people are trying, for
example, to simulate the workings of an insect brain. This will lead to
higher order processes, presumably. That will take time if it can be done
feasibly at all. My guess is it will be done in about 20 years. I of
course have no idea.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:
> You are missing the one main point that I have made over, and over, and
> It's very simple.
> It is 100% irrelevant that the brain does computation (and my 2nd
> message in this thread states that it does). It 100% irrelevant that
> biological organisms have functions that can be technical defined as
> Why is it 100% irrelevant, you ask? Because biological entities are
> *MORE THAN MACHINES*
> That is my point.
> Although, I take it that the argument that you and Andrew are making
> is that what I am calling "more than a machine" is what you are
> calling "machine".
> So, that makes this argument a colossal waste of my time, since it is
> apparently semantics that has insisting that I call complex adaptive
> systems "machines".
> I will have to respectfully disagree with you. But, at least I know
> what the hell you are talking about now (at least I think I do)
> Sam Rose
> Social Synergy
> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> skype: samuelrose
> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
> ambition." - Carl Sagan
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
P.O. Box 633
Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the p2presearch