Artificial Intelligence

[The Grand Nudger]

First, Moore's law won't last long enough to give us the processing power that we need. The brain has far more connectivity than we can ever hope to achieve with out current architectures in silicon. 

I won't be told that I'm trying to force a position on you that I can quote you as having graced us with.  No, your practical experience doesn't count for what you think it does, you may be a brilliant ai researcher, but you've made a statement which doesn't follow, based on a clear lack of knowledge regarding the thing you invoked as a means of explanation...and I fail to see how you might enlighten us in doing so. I think that there was -alot- wrong with the post that this is sourced from...but after having tried to discuss -all- of it and failing, I decided that this and this alone was enough meat for both of us to chew on.  Precisely because it -is- a falsifiable statement, and I've been attempting to provide you with the means to do so.

When you make the claim above, there is a variable "x" implied in the statement.  That is unavoidable.  The "processing power we need", presumably in order to create Strong AI, is "x" -whatever that number is, neither of us knows.

When(if) you reference the human brain as an explanation you have to accept that the human brain has much more "x" than it needs.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lorber
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books...brain.html
(just for starters)

You also might find it prudent to allow for some other candidate system as a means of comparison..or - as I've stated many times, you aren't talking about creating strong ai, you're talking about creating a simulated human being.  So, "x", a variable that you created in making that statement, can be no greater than Simon Lewis' "x"...but possibly much less.  That number may still be huge, but it's getting smaller with every reference you've made thusfar, and can only get -smaller still- with the reference you've refused to make, some non-human candidate for comparison using the -same- framework.

Moore's law has to get us to that undefined minimum -assuming there's a relationship to begin with-, but it certainly doesn't need to take us any farther than Simon Lewis's "x" - and we're not certain how much of that "x" is responsible for his presenting strong intelligence, relative to how much is devoted to presenting human strong intelligence. We could be certain, between us, on that last count -but doing so would take lines of discussion that have not thusfar been fruitful between us.

In short, on the upper end, "x" is a value that is impressive, immense even, but much smaller than your statement would imply - and that much -is- demonstrable, and falsifiable. Have at it. Good luck, you'll need to demonstrate that people such as the ones in my examples -don't exist- or that they don't present strong intelligence. The low end you have failed to define, despite my repeated asking, so I can't say much there that would hold for you...but only because you've refused to participate in that regard.

Are you entirely sure that you've been having the same conversation with me....that I've been trying to have with you?