Adam,
Thanks a lot. You are right on target. In the following weeks or months I will be studying Karl Friston's work. He is a theoretical neuroscientist interested in that gray area between Physics and Neuroscience, and therefore of direct interest to me. Here is a quote from a paper by Daunizeau et. al., speaking about and in the context of Friston's seminal work: "...the functional role played by any brain component (e.g., cortical area, sub-area, neuronal population or neuron) is defined largely by its connections ... In other terms, function emerges from the flow of information among brain areas ... effective connectivity refers to causal effects, i.e., the directed influence that system elements exert on each other (see Friston et al. 2007a for a comprehensive discussion)." This is, precisely, the kind of things that I can predict for the brain. Predictions that I have made, and published, are nearly identical to Friston's, except that mine came from Physics and his came from observation. Agreement between experiment and prediction is a strong confirmation of both. When it is inter-disciplinary, it becomes fundamental. I note that Friston has recognized the role of causality, of the flow of information, the principle of free energy for action and perception, of active inference, in the brain. He uses causal models to infer architecture of the brain. I have been trying to draw conclusions from Physics about these same things, and so far, it seems to me, I have not been too far. He also uses Bayesian statistical methods, which I don't agree with, because Bayes was a human and I want to know what in his brain made it possible for him to develop such a wonderful theory, not the theory itself. But Friston uses Bayesian methods because he doesn't know about my work, the entropy principle, or the inference that follows. In the interest of science, I think it would be important for him to know. Do you know him, can you introduce me to him? Jim, So far, I have only made four claims, one corollary, and two conjectures. They are listed in Section 2 of my Complexity paper. I also apply the four fundamental principles of nature, causality, self-organization (or symmetry), least-action, and entropy (or 2nd. law of Thermodynamics). These are discussed some more in my home page <http://www.scicontrols.com/> . I believe this pretty much takes care of all of Physics. If you know any law or experiment that contradicts my assumptions, the correct action would be for you to publish a paper explaining your views and let the scientific community decide. Note that in Physics, one single experiment that contradicts a theory may mean the collapse of the entire theory. Or, more usually, the emergence of a new theory of which the old one is a particular case. You ask me to prove all I say before saying it. You should tell the same to the AGI people. AI started 60 years ago, under the assumption that intelligence will be conquered by computers. With no proof. So they devoted themselves to writing programs. Sixty years later, AGI emerges, and is still using the same assumption. With no proof. You post your study of an algorithm on an AGI blog. Why would you do that? Because you think the study is a contribution to AGI. There is no proof of that. Science doesn't work like that. There is a thing called scientific discourse, where scientists communicate freely about their ideas. You are essentially telling me to but off because you seem to dislike my conclusions, or else. I can't hide in a hole, sorry. Isn't it time to try something different? Please, be patient, and keep trying to understand what I am saying. I know it is not easy and I appreciate your efforts to remain calm. If it is any consolation, it was very difficult for me too, back in 2005. I believe the outcome of my post - Adam telling us about Friston - overrides everything else you've said. Had I not advanced my hypotheses about the brain, this contact with Adam would not have been established. You would have undermined my chance to participate in our quest for understanding what we are, and the chance of Science to advance one more step ahead. Sergio. From: Adam Safron [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:56 AM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Uncertainty, causality, entropy, self-organization, and Schroedinger's cat. You have already acknowledged the fact that the brain uses a lot of energy so why would you continue to insist that you know exactly how the brain acts to conserve energy without any experience in the field of neural science? Karl Friston's work may be relevant to this discussion: http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~karl/#_Free-energy_principle Best, -Adam On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:49 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: Sergio, I am making an effort to try to understand what you are saying. I am also trying to avoid making personal attacks. However, I have major problems when someone claims that he has -the answer- when he does not have -the proof-. So I have been making more personal criticisms about your attitude about your own theory, not to to win the argument or to personally trounce you, but to see if you are able to acknowledge that you cannot possibly be certain about your theory without actually making it do what you say it can do. Once you acknowledge some serious uncertainty about the theory, or I come to the conclusion that you are unable to do that, I want to try to figure out what your theory is about. I did not understand this at first, but now I think that you are saying that the response a person makes in situations where some uncertainty exist, will be an invariant given those situations. Is that right or is it wrong? Regardless of the knowledge someone has about what might follow, the response that a person chooses in the face of uncertainty is one in which the entropy of the information that the person has about the situation will be minimized so that the useful information is retained. Is this essentially right? It should be obvious that this is going to be an imperfect process given that some situations are more complicated than others. Isn't that right? Is it possible that your theory is only a physical-reaction-of-the-brain response to a problem of overwhelming uncertainty and therefore not a sound theory derived from insight? Two more criticisms. One is that you are choosing some of the laws of physics while ignoring others and then claiming that these laws that you have chosen explain how the brain works. The brain is obviously a complicated organ, so how can you claim that your choice of abstractions from physics can explain it? Secondly. We learn from previous experiences. We learn that we do have choices. And we learn that many of the choices we have can be made without immediately threatening our survival. Why aren't my choices based on insight (right or wrong)? Knowledge that is only derived from the essence of an abstract system is usually pretty frail. Isn't it possible that the mind is physical organ capable of dealing with insight and therefore capable of reacting in ways that are less efficient than your theory is suggesting. You have already acknowledged the fact that the brain uses a lot of energy so why would you continue to insist that you know exactly how the brain acts to conserve energy without any experience in the field of neural science? (I am not saying that we must not talk about such things, I am only saying that we cannot honestly claim that our knowledge of the basics of neural science are absolutely correct.) Jim Bromer AGI | <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/9673850-85fb8305> | <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Modify Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com/> AGI | <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57> | <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Modify Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
