On Mon., 1 Jul. 2019, 1:09 pm Costi Dumitrescu, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Engineering. Yes. > > But we do want to build artificial birds. Against the leaf eating > insects and other anthropization balancing items. > > Other industries studied birds too. The aircraft industry studied > (underwater) boats more than birds. If they'll study more birds, planes > will be less shaky in strong winds. > The scientific goal of understanding the physics of flight, and its involvement with the science of artificial flight is s presented in the text as one of 4 exemplars of science practice (a)...(d), intended to accurately communicate science practice so that those involved in the (neuro)science "of natural general intelligence" understand how their activities fit, including how engineering "artificial general intelligence" is part of the process. I hope you can see that 'making artificial birds' is also a viable science activity, worth doing, useful, but as a topic is not germane to the argument being made. "Engineering artificial flight" is, to a science of natural flight, as "engineering artificial intelligence" is to a (neuro)science of natural intelligence. This is the essential message. If we correctly engineer artificial general intelligence, then one of the downstream applications is the artificial nervous (control) system of a robotic artificial bird. Also done without using computers. Great goal! .... I hope it inspires you to take the revised science framework seriously if you really want an artificial bird! Colin ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M5adf29fc16915353ad648354 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
