[stephanfroede]

The singularity is a linear projection of computing power, in this projection anything that is questioning the singularity is pro-actively ignored. What puzzles me most, is why it is ignored. For me it does not make sense to hope that just the amount of simulated neuronal complexity will be enough, that suddenly out of the complexity something intelligent emerges. The whole approach is flawed. Something very essential is missing, that is a proven model how brains work and why they work, down to the last quantum state.

[icebraining]

Is it really necessary? As far as I know, the theories about generating lift were still being heavily debated long after the Wright brothers flew. People often simply try things until they work, then go back and try to understand why they work.

Having a decent theory helps, but I'm skeptical that a complete understanding of the issue is required to make it work.

[stephanfroede]

The difference is the plane did fly without the understanding after little research, but we are trying to make the machines intelligent since decades.

Something is missing, imo.

[icebraining]

Little research? We had been trying to make heavier-than-air machines for centuries, if not millennia. Even the specific concept of the modern airplane as a fixed-wing flying machine with separate systems for lift, propulsion, and control was put forward in 1799, more than a century before the Wright brothers flight. If we talk about flying machines in general, the Bamboo-copter[1] is 2400 years old.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo-copter

[stephanfroede]

It was in my best intend to ignore all attempts before the Wright brothers to try to fly.

It is the same here, we have the wish to make intelligent machines, but we may lack an engine to do that. Besides the airplane design it was also the availability of powerful engines and other features to go the skies.

(I did read the Wikipedia article): in that sense I afraid we are more at stadium of Da Vincis concepts than an aeroplane.