<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 06/30/2011 06:53 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E0C7FDC.2090505@susaro.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Samantha Atkins wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E0BDDCC.5010305@mac.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 06/29/2011 11:46 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E0B7308.6040201@susaro.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
<tt>Stefano, your argument is fine .... except that you have
neglected to notice that I was talking about whether a PC
could
simulate a mind "in real time". In other words, from the
very
beginning I have been talking about anything EXCEPT the
universal
computation issue!<br>
<br>
I never disputed whether a tinkertoy or a bunch of marbles
running in a
maze (or a Searlean idiot locked up in a room with pieces of
paper
being passed under the door) could simulate a mind .... hey,
no
problem: all of these things could simulate a mind if
programmed
correctly.<br>
<br>
All I cared about was whether a PC could do it in real
time. In other
words, fast enough to keep up with a human.<br>
</tt></blockquote>
<br>
Did you present you argument for operation throughput of the
brain
and show that that the same operation throughput can be done on
a PC?
If you did I missed it. If the PC cannot match the brain on
operation throughput then I don't see how you can say it is
possible
for a PC to keep up with a human across all general intelligence
tasks. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You come into the middle of an argument and, not having understood
the
thread, you imply that I said something that I did not, then imply
that
I was negligent in not properly justifying the thing that I did
not say.<br>
<br>
Nice try. ;-)<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I saw you say something that seemed to me very much like this. Do
not waste my time implying that I am playing games with you. It was
a serious question. If this is not what you said then what is your
claim exactly? I did read back and saw not only the above but
things like the below before I asked the above question you just
wave away. <br>
<br>
"The point is that there are choices here. My own work tends to
indicate that something around the cortical column level of
functionality would be sufficient for most of the processing. Now,
if
that were true then an AGI could very well be built using something
within an order of magnitude of a current PC.<br>
<br>
I don't think anyone pays sufficient atention to this little issue.
Does anyone reading this post truly realize that the implication is
that if cortical columns are the relevant functional level, and if
someone figured out what the functionality is, that means someone
could
build an AGI that would fit in (probably) a single server rack, and
do
so by the end of the year...? "<br>
<br>
That sounds like a pretty substantial claim to me. So in what way
am I putting words in your mouth?<br>
<br>
- samantha<br>
<br>
<br>
- samantha<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>