SV: Capacity of the brain

Ken Collins KPaulC at email.msn.com
Tue Sep 14 19:18:42 EST 1999


Tim Tyler <tt at cryogen.com> wrote in message news:FI21B5.82F at bath.ac.uk...
> Ken Collins <KPaulC at email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> : i caught an interview of Mr. Kurzewiel [...]
>
> : but i cannot agree with much of anything that Kurzewiel said. [...]
>
> : another point Kursewile brought up was with respect to the implantation
of
> : 'helping' circuitry into brains. [...] 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.
>
> How so?  I extend the processing power of my bain on a daily basis -
> by interfacing it to my computer, via visual and tactile feedback.
> This enables me to do a number of things I would otherwise find
> to be next-to impossible.

trust me, every byte one pushes through one's machine has its price in terms
of what one could've, otherwise, been... doesn't mean it's a 'waste'. just
means what i said.

>
> I don't see how the exact location of the processing hardware will
> suddenly render this type of man-machine interface worthless.

forgive me, please, that's because you don't comprehend how nervous systems
process information.

the main thing is explained in AoK, Ap9. at an overly-simplified 'level',
the diminution of overall information-processing capacity of a 'normal'
nervous system derives in the alteration of the neural topology
necessarily-imposed by the 'implant'. this's because 'normal' nervous
systems 'seek' to minimize circuit lengths... shove anything else in-there,
and the nervous system, 1. doesn't know how to minimize circuit lengths
within the thing that's shoved in-there, and 2. the physical presence of the
thing that's shoved in-there prevents the minimization of circuit lengths at
the place where it's shoved in-there, and this disruption of what's 'normal'
has ramifications, widely, within the nervous system.

that's why any 'normal' nervous system will always 'kick the butt' of any
formerly-'normal' nervous system that has anything shoved in-there.

if folks go at it on an evolutionary 'time' scale, will they 'get lucky'?

nope, 'cause, during all that 'time', 'normal' nervous systems'll 'just' be
getting better... there's a bit of Xeno in-there :-)

> : it's my analysis that everything Kursewiel said was calculated, solely,
with
> : respect to keeping the money flowing into so-called 'AI'...
>
> I doubt that.  He's expressing his veiws - I don't think that he's
> deliberately trying to cultivate a misunderstanding for the benefit
> of AI workers.

i did a further analysis, today, and realized that, although my comments
remain valid on a 'secondary level', they'd missed the main thing.

maybe i'll take out a full-page ad in the _Daily Plan-It_, celebrating
"Amateurs" who do-it for Love... 'spect that'd 'explain', sufficiently. 'be
all i could do if the door's to remain being held-open.

> : his discussion was devoid of understanding of how nervous systems
process
> : information, and in such, constitutes a great injustice to all people,
> : everywhere.
>
> I doubt any disrespect was intended.  For the most part, I seem to agree
> with Kurzweil, and to disagree with you.

Knock yourself out.

> : if folks in 'AI' do not care enough about nervous systems to understand
how
> : they process information, folks in 'AI' should steer clear of discussing
> : 'what it is' that nervous systems do.
>
> I don't see why this should follow.  It seems to me you can make
> intelligent statements about the operation of "black boxes" even
> *if* you are completely ignorant about their workings.

yeah, but it's non-sensical to do so when all one has to do is peek inside,
ain't it?

> : your 'non-chalance' with respect to promulgating your Ignorance, in the
name
> : of 'profits', is breath-takingly Offensive, to the point of laying the
> : foundation for mass-Murder.
>
> This looks like you're grinding your own personal axe, here.

i understand the 'appearances', but how many examples of mass Murder would
'satisfy' you?

> I don't see Kurzweil expressing "ignorant" points of view, by and large,
> let alone laying the foundation for mass murder.
>
> If you have specific criticisms, then feel free to make them.

well, you know, if i weren't so exhausted when i posted what i posted,
i'd've not posted anything. it was part of the further analysis i did,
today, that i was 'reacting', in my tiredness, to the 'main thing', but at a
'gut level'... not yet Seeing it clearly... had i completed the analysis
before posting, i'd've just done a 'turn-the-other-cheek' thing.

but i'm grateful to you for bringing it up (and, in the end, to the folks
involved in the refference matter, too). i had to find a way to make the
'point' that folks should do anything other than 'triffle' with me from here
on out. although i Choose to 'stand on my head, singin' Yankee Doodle Dandy,
spitting wooden nickels", i See pretty-much everything, i've been locked in
deadly combat with the awesomely-Savage 'Beast' for goin' on 30 years,
expect i'm 'on-the-way-out', and, although, because i'll be Wrong if i
give-way to it, i'll fight it as best i can, folks should understand that,
if they 'come-upon' me when the "Beast's" 'got me by the throat', it's
likely that things'll 'get-messy' before i can act to Protect folks...
there's not much left of me, and i tend to use what's left in doing the one
thing.

i understand the 'unseemliness' of such, but i've still got a ways to go
before the "Beast's" a-goner, and, since, 'when there's all the 'time' in
the world', i'm always movin' against the 'Beast' as rapidly as i can, but,
now, "time's-of-the-essence", as 'they' say, and there's none of it to be
spared with respect to folks who Choose to do Jackass things, even if 'on a
lark'.

from here on out, get between Truth and me, and one'll get 'messed-up', a
bit, despite all my long-standing efforts toward the inverse of such.

and, if you wonder, i Hate even having to transgress Free Will, as i have,
here, but, for the Life of me, i can't see that it's not the Loving thing to
do... despite the 'unseemliness' inherent.

K. P. Collins (ken)





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list