SV: Capacity of the brain
KPaulC at email.msn.com
Tue Sep 14 05:10:16 EST 1999
it's clear that i must 'explain' further.
it's 'old-long-since' that i've known, with certainty, that AI cannot be
achieved, except through the 'door' that is NDT.
there's another 'door', so much-more-awesomely-important, that i choose to
hold open, and with respect to which my 'hard words' have their purpose.
Ken Collins <KPaulC at email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:e1IBNNl$#GA.190 at cpmsnbbsa05...
> i caught an interview of Mr. Kurzewiel (sp?) on PBS, _The News Hour with
> Leherer_ this evening (Mon, 13Sep99).
> Kursewiel went on and on about how, within the immediate future, machines
> will humble human intelligence.
> before i begin, it's been the case, until now, that Kurzewiel has had my
> respect because of his efforts helping folks overcome this or that through
> the use of machines.
> but i cannot agree with much of anything that Kurzewiel said.
> the point was repeatedly made that machines can 'clone' programs in a
> of seconds, and thereafter, 'share' similar capabilities.
> it's hilarious... what machines actually share, as a result of such, is
> inability to program themselves in any way that contradicts their shared
> the point was made that the brain has no 'interface' into which new
> can be so dumped.
> well, duh... it's inherent in the design for nervous systems that they
> be =generalized= processors. the thought of 'programming' them in
> stereotypical ways contradicts the fundamental essence of what nervous
> systems are.
> another point Kursewile brought up was with respect to the implantation of
> 'helping' circuitry into brains. with respect to such, i stand on what i
> posted in long-former discussion. while such implants are useful with
> respect to deficit conditions, any such stuff applied to intact nervous
> systems will, necessarily, decrease the information-processing power of
> those nervous systems... render them incomplete in significant ways.
> it's my analysis that everything Kursewiel said was calculated, solely,
> respect to keeping the money flowing into so-called 'AI'...
> 'profit'-seeking. there was nothing in what he said that's of use with
> respect to Human information processing. his discussion was devoid of
> understanding of how nervous systems process information, and in such,
> constitutes a great injustice to all people, everywhere.
> let the word go out.
> if folks in 'AI' do not care enough about nervous systems to understand
> they process information, folks in 'AI' should steer clear of discussing
> 'what it is' that nervous systems do.
> i'll not stand for the promulgation of Ignorance with respect to nervous
> systems' processing of information.
> your 'non-chalance' with respect to promulgating your Ignorance, in the
> of 'profits', is breath-takingly Offensive, to the point of laying the
> foundation for mass-Murder.
> if you do not care to comprehend nervous system function, get off such,
> henceforth, because i'm obliged to set things straight, and within my
> to do so, i will do so.
> K. P. Collins
> Ken Collins <KPaulC at email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ei62O3W$#GA.76 at cpmsnbbsa05...
> > Ian Young <iyoung at one.net> wrote in message
> news:37dc0d72_1 at news1.one.net...
> > >[...]
> > > The problem is, we never evolved an internal capacity to do abstract
> > > numerical mathematics in real-time.
> > ho, ho, ho ^ (ho, ho, ho)
> > > ...Well, except for some people with autism.
> > >
> > > Hell, your dog can learn to catch a frisbee pretty quick. That's a lot
> > > of computation there, buddy. My computer can barely draw a 3d
> > > much less gauge it's position in one, and then plot an intercept
> > > between
> > > itself and a flying object, through visual means.
> > >
> > > Although, my computer can do square roots pretty damned fast.
> > > I, however, cannot. And I bet your dog doens't even have a clue what
> > > a square root is.
> > you touched on the cruxt of the matter... what machines do is so trivial
> > relative to what nervous systems do, nervous systems, innately,
> > such.
> > the Maths that nervous systems routinely do is spectacularly-beyond the
> > Maths that machines do... it's important to keep such straight, despite
> > one's fielty to, and reliance upon, machines in the course of "chiseling
> > things into 'stone'" to the benefit of common discourse.
> > common discourse is just common discourse.
> > discourse away... the nervous system remains a 'universe'
> > 'containing' the physical Universe, in all its wonders. =that's= the
> > computation that our nervous systems do, without troubling us with
> > re. what they do... they 'just' do-it.
> > this, from one who thinks there's little more pleasant than coaxing a
> > machine to manifest this or that.
> > it's 'just' that, despite such efforts, our nervous systems remain so
> > awesoely, extremely-very-much more.
> > they 'corral' infinity, and lay-it-out on behalf of us... despite the
> > Truly-base 'disregard' for such that prevails, still.
> > K. P. Collins
More information about the Neur-sci