I always find your work refreshing (and it did take my mind of the assault on the free world)....
"neuroscience mixed with EM physics locates the center of the study of consciousness." It seems like it. On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 12:31 PM Colin Hales <col.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ok. The sound bite summary from an AGI perspective: > > Politics. > Expect a convergence on EM and a physics/Neuroscience linkage to grow and > dominate the area. > > Technical shift. > The brain, Steam, abacus, pneumatic, hydraulic, relay, discrete electronics, > integrated circuit electronics .... > > Are not different substrates. There is only 1 common substrate: EM > > The difference between the brain and the rest is in the specific organization > of the EM. 'substrate independence' as originally intended is actually > 'organizational invariance' applied to EM as expressed by atoms. > > The whole program of works in AI/AGI has been, in effect, based on an > assumption of the truth of some kind of "organizational invariance" > principle, who's actual route to proof involves empirical work that involves > it's potential falsehhod .... using a test involving AGI done without using > general purpose computers. > > So: 'substrate independence' is now a broken idea. > > Cheers > Colin > > > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022, 2:59 AM <immortal.discover...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Sir this is a Lot of text to read, lol... Ok I read a fair half of it >> basically. The titles help say what is in the text beneath, but each title >> is similar, so it doesn't really break down anything I think. >> >> "To be such a configuration of EM fields is, under the right conditions, to >> be conscious." >> Yes, if one had the AGI algorithm and trained it, it too would "be", I don't >> really understand why you tried to bring us to this point, we know this... >> >> Also you say again even though you said it can be done in a computer to my >> last post (maybe you didn't mean that?): >> "Neuroscientists are entitled to ask what goes missing, in the sense of the >> heat in the combustion example, when the physics of brain signaling is >> thrown out and replaced by the physics of a computer. Is the computer and >> its model really contacting all brain phenomena? If there is something >> missing, how would we know? What procedure might we use to find out? This is >> the challenge posed by the McCulloch quote (McCulloch, 1965) at the start of >> this article." >> >> Now, to respond to that question, EM fields would be in the neurons and >> axons, everything, allowing the relay of "signals" and "reactions" to border >> cross and run, if you get me, but the power of these fields and size etc can >> be ran on a computer. Making it natural way in artificial meat may be >> easier, but I think not. I think the signal travelling along an axon will >> depend more on the what it is and less on the what it uses to transverse and >> what it is made of....kind of like a hammer could be made of cells or metal, >> still a hammer though. Let's make up the EM was a oblong wide-ish sphere >> that got really dense in force tot the center fast, unevely linear in >> strength to towards the center. And let's say it grows and shrink at some >> speed and conditions. Let's assume this allows for patterns, the type just >> we need in this universe, to form and bind to build bigger patterns, it just >> works this way, it's how tools are made. So, hmm, if the data is images from >> one 2D camera, or even one theoretical 3D x-ray camera, I would think the >> binding of these "parts" of the images would be more like a you fire and you >> do too, then we both wire, which is well known in the AI literature. I mean >> you can't expect to just have to put together a trillion meat sticks and it >> will just be the right algorithm for-you, it will do nothing. You need to >> code the whole algorithm. So I doubt the EM fields have some sort of >> already-there abilities like that which would improve attention spans or >> allow longer recent memory or anything else. >> >> On the account though of consciousness, that is from a really good GPT-3/ >> NUWA/ Pallete AI if you get me :). It may need NUWA but also trained on >> faces and voice and to reply to humans using this NUWA-face-predictor, and a >> movie by the side of what you and it are Skype-ing about. Maybe with some >> improvements too. An evolving goal and storing of thoughts also is >> important. Currently these AIs talk about all topics, car hobbyist and >> rocket engineers aren't allowed to -- they force out certain domain words >> like cars/ trucks/ fuel, space/ rocket/ ship/ suit. We *need* each AI to >> have a focused job, so they can focus! Letting it run and store new thoughts >> etc would let it learn new goals. No need for a better AI there. If you >> train the AI to think ok consciousness, hmm, consciousness, I am analyzing >> this now to reply to Colin Hales on this forum, hmm, my goal is >> consciousness, and to open that word up.....then it will learn how to >> reason! Just train it on this stuff. I may be wrong... any more ideas how to >> make AGI here? > > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants + > delivery options Permalink ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T9e4e609a498b77c4-Mfd3ac58f8d85b59432fe44f9 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
