That idea did not work. You can send 1 of 6 states in 2 clock cycles with the method I was talking about but if you have a no-voltage state then you can send trinary digits and you can represent 1 of 9 states in 2 clock cycles. Jim Bromer
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 1:51 PM Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the effective voltage compression in the voltage/timing binary > transmission model would approach 1/3 or 1/4. I cannot remember which one > offhand. > Jim Bromer > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I should have said: The method that neurons form generative >> 'connections' is irrelevant to the capability of neural activity to >> transmit data. The brain must be able to form reactions and to make choices >> like inhibiting or activating different kinds of reactions to some event. >> This means that the brain must be reacting across some distances. It could >> be done by long axons, I have no way of knowing. >> >> According to Indiana.edu an axon can grow as long as 5 feet. >> >> Afer thinking about Matt's response to Steve's remark and Alan's response >> in the other thread I realized I probably misunderstood what Steve was >> saying. But I started thinking about what he said (what I now think he >> said). A number of years ago I discovered that if you sent two bits, one >> sent by timing or placement within a timing frame, you could get some >> compression by using the two forms of data representation. One by voltage >> (in my theory) and the other by timing. (There is a technical dilemma in >> using contemporary computer technology, because you are sort of using a >> trinary voltage state, no voltage, low voltage, and high voltage. But if >> the system was designed around an actual timing mechanism, and no voltage >> was just a default state and it meant nothing is being transmitted in that >> time frame whenever there is a no voltage reading on the receiver side then >> the quasi-trinary aspect is just a part of a technical specification.) I >> cannot remember if the compression approached 1/2 or 1/3 or 3/4. So now I >> have two questions. If there were n dimensions to the data transmission >> could the voltage conservation compression approach an exponential rate on >> n? Or would it just be a geometric compression rate? There would be a cost >> to such a system so it would not be completely exponential or completely >> geometric regardless of the resultant compression rate. For instance in the >> voltage/timing mechanism the compression of the voltage signals sent would >> cost something in the time taken to send the data out. Oh yeah, I remember. >> The 1/3 or 3/4 ratios had something to do with the actual cost in voltage >> (of the data transmission) which is relevant in contemporary technology >> because of battery usage and heat build up. >> So if you had 3 physically very distinct binary dimensions to transmit >> data within a circuit, using voltage, timing, and routing, could you reduce >> representation to 1/8th? Even if the data had to be statically represented >> using all 3 dimensional bits could the circuit be nested with similar >> circuits and used for compressing computations? It is going to take me some >> time to figure this out. >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:54 PM Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I guess I should have not said that I totally agree with Steve's >>> comment. When he said dimensions I was thinking more of types such as >>> abstract types or something that is effectively similar. Suppose there was >>> a non-standard, innovative mathematics that was able to effectively deal >>> with data of different abstract types. Then it would be capable of >>> calculating with different abstractions some of which might be said to play >>> roles similar to dimensions in standard contemporary mathematics of >>> measurable objects. >>> >>> The method that neurons form generative 'connections' is irrelevant to >>> the capability of neural activity to transmit data. The brain must be able >>> to form reactions and to make choices like inhibiting or activating >>> different kinds of reactions to some event. This means that the brain must >>> be reacting across some distances. It could be done by long synapses, I >>> have no way of knowing. >>> >>> If natural neural networks are able to implement logical or symbolic >>> functions then they certainly have the potential to transmit richer data >>> that is able to encode a great many variations of data objects. So, >>> regardless of the details of how firing 'connections' are formed, the model >>> of thought that most of us feel is in the neighborhood of the ballpark if >>> not in the dugout is some sort of variation of the computational model of >>> mind. The idea that Hebbian theory might be used to proscribe a severe >>> limitation on the range of neural symbolic processing is not supported by >>> our experiences. >>> Jim Bromer >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:33 PM Matt Mahoney <mattmahone...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I disagree. By what mechanism would neurons representing feet and >>>> meters connect, but not kilograms and liters? >>>> >>>> Neurons form connections by Hebb's rule. Neurons representing words >>>> form connections when they appear close together or in the same context. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 4:14 PM Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Steve said: I strongly suspect biological synapses are tagged in some >>>>> way to only connect with other synapses carrying dimensionally compatible >>>>> information. >>>>> >>>>> I totally agree. So one thing that I am wondering about is whether >>>>> that can be computed using a novel kind of mathematics? Intuitively, I >>>>> would say absolutely. >>>>> >>>>> A truly innovative AI mathematical system would not 'solve' every AI >>>>> problem but could it be developed so that it helped speed up and direct an >>>>> initial analysis of input? Intuitively I am pretty sure it can be done, >>>>> but >>>>> I am not at all sure that I could come up with a method. >>>>> Jim Bromer >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:13 PM Steve Richfield < >>>>> steve.richfi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jim, >>>>>> >>>>>> Many systems, e.g. while adding probabilities to compute >>>>>> probabilities doesn't make sense; adding counts having poor significance, >>>>>> which can look a lot like adding probabilities, can make sense to >>>>>> produce a >>>>>> count. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where this gets confusing is in sensory fusion. Present practice is >>>>>> usually some sort of weighted summation, when CAREFUL analysis would >>>>>> probably involve various nonlinearities to convert inputs to cannonical >>>>>> form that make sense to add, followed by another nonlinearity to convert >>>>>> the sum to suitable output units. >>>>>> >>>>>> I strongly suspect biological synapses are tagged in some way to only >>>>>> connect with other synapses carrying dimensionally compatible >>>>>> information. >>>>>> >>>>>> Everyone seems to focus on values being computed, when it appears >>>>>> that it is the dimensionality that restricts learning to potentially >>>>>> rational processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 9:14 AM Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I originally thought about novel computational rules. Arithmetic is >>>>>>> not reversible because a computational result is not unique for the >>>>>>> input >>>>>>> operands. That makes it a type of compression. Furthermore it uses a >>>>>>> limited set of rules. That makes it a super compression method. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 12:08 PM Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I guess I understand what you mean. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 12:07 PM Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think your use of metaphors, especially metaphors that were >>>>>>>>> intended to emphasize your thoughts through exaggeration, may have >>>>>>>>> confused >>>>>>>>> me. Would you explain your last post Steve? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 12:02 PM Steve Richfield < >>>>>>>>> steve.richfi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Too much responding without sufficient thought. After a week of >>>>>>>>>> thought regarding earlier postings on this thread... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Genuine computation involves manipulating numerically expressible >>>>>>>>>> value (e.g. 0.62), dimensionality (e.g. probability), and >>>>>>>>>> significance >>>>>>>>>> (e.g. +/- 0.1). Outputs of biological neurons appear to fit this >>>>>>>>>> model. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HOWEVER, much of AI does NOT fit this model - yet still appears >>>>>>>>>> to "work". If this is useful than use it, but there usually is no >>>>>>>>>> path to >>>>>>>>>> better solutions. You can't directly understand, optimize, adapt, >>>>>>>>>> debug, >>>>>>>>>> etc., because it is difficult/impossible to wrap your brain around >>>>>>>>>> quantities representing nothing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Manipulations that don't fit this model are numerology, not >>>>>>>>>> mathematics, akin to bring astrology instead of astronomy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It seems perfectly obvious to me that AGI, when it comes into >>>>>>>>>> being, will involve NO numerological faux "computation". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure, learning could involve developing entirely new computation, >>>>>>>>>> but it would have to perform potentially valid computations on it's >>>>>>>>>> inputs. >>>>>>>>>> For example, adding probabilities is NOT valid, but ORing them could >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> valid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 8:22 AM Alan Grimes via AGI < >>>>>>>>>> agi@agi.topicbox.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It has the basic structure and organization of a conscious >>>>>>>>>>> agent, >>>>>>>>>>> obviously it lacks the other ingredients required to produce a >>>>>>>>>>> complete >>>>>>>>>>> mind. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Stefan Reich via AGI wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > Prednet develops consciousness? >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 06:51 Alan Grimes via AGI < >>>>>>>>>>> agi@agi.topicbox.com >>>>>>>>>>> > <mailto:agi@agi.topicbox.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Yay, it seems peeps are finally ready to talk about this!! >>>>>>>>>>> =P >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Lets see if I can fool anyone into thinking I'm actually >>>>>>>>>>> making >>>>>>>>>>> > sense by >>>>>>>>>>> > starting with a first principles approach... Permalink >>>>>>>>>>> > < >>>>>>>>>>> https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T395236743964cb4b-M686d9fcf7662ad8dc2fc1130 >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Please report bounces from this address to a...@numentics.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Powers are not rights. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI >>>>>>>>>>> Permalink: >>>>>>>>>>> https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T395236743964cb4b-Mdc530e65efee5618dc6de900 >>>>>>>>>>> Delivery options: >>>>>>>>>>> https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Artificial General Intelligence List >>>> <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* / AGI / see discussions >>>> <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants >>>> <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options >>>> <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink >>>> <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T395236743964cb4b-M9defff2ab5e8b39a818f88fa> >>>> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T395236743964cb4b-M4570e480385f3b9a60328de1 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
