Re: answers I'd like, part 2

From: Bryan Bishop (
Date: Thu Nov 15 2007 - 18:48:31 MST

On Thursday 15 November 2007 09:56, Adam Safron wrote:
> A brain-in-a-box would not know how to improve its own
> functioning. Emulation is not understanding.

The problem with self-improvement-in-a-box is that it is a _box_ and
that is no environment in which complexity can grow. A baby needs the
womb. It is like trying to draw a 128-sided polygon in a pyramid, which
clearly does not have enough points or 'complexity' to support the

But in general I question whether or not the actual functioning of the
brain has to be improved at the moment to reach seed-AI levels. What we
need is more brain, not necessarily better brain, although both avenues
of research should be pursued. Instead of emulating we could be adding
more raw brain power and trying to interface it with the readily
present neurons.

I say this because we _are_ AI ourselves and so far not yet seed AI. So
the way to solve this problem seems to be to add more brain, which
seems to be the special component, not necessarily better brain,
something that is as of yet impossible. You can cite geniuses, yes, but
you cannot yet cite ways to replicate genius, so scientifically I am
not sure if genius counts as an argument.

Interesting post. Thank you. Please continue. :)

- Bryan

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:00 MDT