Your post reads like someone who has taken a psychoactive and suddenly believes they understand the nature of things. The only meaningful conclusion that I can draw from your post(s) is that you do not actually understand what you're talking about nearly as well as you believe you do.

​

>Sequences of direct action and reaction that change "behavior" based on the current conditions of cell and its surrounding environment.
>
>THIS is why I say there are no models in the brain. Based on what? Theres no need.

The random motions of cells in a body do not make for intelligence anymore than the wind making waves in the ocean does. Random cellular motions do not produce repeatable outcomes. It's well established scientific fact that memories are the result of synaptic connections between neurons and that those memories will activate those same synaptic pathways and neurons every single time you access them.

>Prove it. Where in the brain are the models stored.

For my example of riding a bicycle, the main areas this information is stored are a combination of the hippocampus, cerebellum, and basal ganglia. If your conjecture was actually true, then it would be impossible for a brain injury to have any impact on your existing abilities or skills. But we know that injuring a specific part of the brain can cause you to become worse at, or completely lose, a skill. In fact, using existing brain mapping technology we can specifically target parts of the brain that retain specific information if we wanted or even avoid them completely as is the case when performing neurosurgery.

Likewise, do not mistake the brain's capacity to heal/repair itself after an injury as evidence that these pathways do not exist. Similar to how the internet does not completely shut down if a link goes down, the brain is able to reroute and create new neural connections to parts that still work.

I'm not even going to bother addressing the issues with your understanding about modern AI. I've already spent way too much time on this post as it is.

These thoughts of mine could be better stated, but I don't have time right now.

​

That's a lot of words to say that because you think we may not be able to create AI with current and/or proposed technology, you don't think it will ever be able to exist. To dismiss our ability to create true AI/AGI in the future because of modern limitations is a bit shortsighted at best. Especially considering that we're already doing things with AI that were impossible to do in the past.

I think you're overselling the computational complexity of things like immune cells. They're not exactly navigating the body on a self determined path to find pathogens. There is no 'thinking' involved beyond reacting to a stimulus. I'd also argue that Moravec's Paradox isn't really a paradox, but a misunderstanding of how complex those 'simple' tasks were at the time the statement was made because they lacked the relevant information. We now know that our senses account for a huge amount of our brain's processing capacity.

Likewise, for some reason you're completely ignoring the fact that human interpretation of data is literally how we teach other humans right now. We spend decades teaching young humans what red is, what hot is, what symbols we use to communicate and how to use them, what symbols we use to calculate and how to use them, how different things interact, and on and on. No human on the planet is born with the knowledge of what red is, it's a human interpretation that's taught to other humans by other humans. And even that can be wrong because there are humans with red/green color vision deficiency that cannot accurately interpret those colors.

​

>There is no need for models of anything in the brain. Nothing has to be abstracted out and processed by algorithms to produce a desired result.

Your brain absolutely creates models or algorithms (or whatever you would like to call them). When you learn to ride a bicycle, for example, your brain creates a model of what you need to do to produce the desired result of riding a bicycle without crashing. When that 'bicycle riding' model encounters a situation it's unfamiliar with you often end up crashing the bike, such as riding a bicycle with the steering reversed. Your brain is using a model it made of how a bicycle is supposed to work and even though you 'know' that the steering is backwards, you're unable to simply get on and ride such a bicycle because the model in your brain is unable to accommodate the change without significant retraining.