On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 10:25 AM Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote:
> I remember when most people didn't know what "AI" meant. > > Now, it's the stuff of bar pickup lines. > *LOL* Into the noise of the bar you say "*Hi, I'm into AI*." ... with red-lined suavity. "*Wow! Are you? Do you really know that? How do you know that?" *is the reply. "*Aaaah ...*" you stop. Hmmm. Suavity mode disabled. If you are honest with yourself, you must admit you do not. How is that? Applied to artificial flight, the acronym "AF" would rightly be expected to elicit, in the audience, a mental reference to actual flight. But instead, when the acronym "AI" is uttered, it elicits a generationally acculturated, hyper-memed tribal agreement that, like "AF", the utterance "AI" refers to an artificial version of a natural thing, with all the implications thereof. It does not. This is at best an unproved hypothesis (potentially true, albeit under circumstances not yet described), and at worst a systemic (community-wide) delusion (if false, again unproved). It is a fact of nature that human brain physics exists in the world in the exact way bird flight physics (or any other physics) exists in the world: real causality (fields in space) at work, organised naturally by nature. Brains are 'braining' in just the same way birds are 'flying'. Artificial versions of both these things involve the essential natural physics until proved otherwise (i.e. actual comparative empirical work is done). Not before. That is the way of the science of natural phenomena. How can this bar-room car-crash happen? It's because unlike "AF", the physical practice of what is termed "AI" does not refer to an artificial version of the natural original. The natural physics is gone. It's always been gone. Instead "AI" actually refers to a simulator (or more accurately - automation) .... a system of computed-models (abstractions) of the 'computation' performed by the physics of the natural original (the brain). For that is the state of the science: The causality of a computer is mistaken (and only in this particular science), without principle or precedent, for the replication of (an identity with) the natural 'computation' (brain physics). In that mistake, what is lost? What is missing? What aspects of brain function go unexplored? The entire discipline does not know because "to do AI is to use a computer" has become the industrialized norm. And alas, just like computed models of the physics of natural flight are zero flight, prima-facie, computer-models of brain signalling physics cannot be claimed to have non-zero intelligence. At least that should be the formally recognised position adopted by the science until properly proved by doing the actual replication. Especially if it is the only place in science where this literal equivalence (to a computed model) would apply. I have no idea if "*Hi, I'm into AF*" suavity would have done any great service to the Wright Bros in a bar setting! 😀 What I know for sure is that at least they would have been telling the truth and they'd know it! cheers! Colin 😝 <think about it> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T191003acdcbf5ef8-M5e638c86b7316893daffcb3a Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
