Aaron, On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Aaron Hosford <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am in agreement with John here regarding human intelligence. We are > components of a distributed learning algorithm, whose accumulated > intelligence far exceeds the capabilities of any one of us taken in > isolation. Likewise for our cells with respect to our bodies. > > Evolution is the key driver here. It's the one algorithm I know of that > bootstraps intelligence from the ground up into the recursive networks you > pointed out, Steve. The question remains, though: Exactly *what *is being > generated by this bootstrapping process? What is it that is gained through > this recursive organizational structure? Where is the value added? What can > be accomplished through such a recursive organizing principle that cannot > be accomplished directly? (I am trying to point the discussion in the right > direction by asking the right questions.) > There is a problem with this question, that seems to have been at the heart of the past lack of AGI success. We have NO clue how we work. Our concept of consciousness has been conjured up by our brains as a model, and there is absolutely NO reason to believe that any such thing actually exists, and plenty of reason to believe it does not, because the things we think cannot possibly be the result of a single-thread process. Perhaps we sense the "success paths" from problems to solutions, but we certainly do NOT have any idea how they are found, etc. Further, there is a rule that you can NOT understand the operation of any optimal system through observation, because optimality could be computed in any of a vast number of ways. It is only through observation of that which is SUBoptimal that we can understand complex systems through observation. However in AGI, we have little idea what is optimal, and so we cannot recognize most of that which is suboptimal, and so there is no effective starting point to develop an understanding. Given the apparent theoretical hopelessness of past "direct" attempts, it appears that the first AGI absolutely MUST be of recursive design. Perhaps by observing its internal operation with suitable debugging tools we can learn enough to then produce a direct design. Can you punch any holes in this logic? Steve =================== > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:09 PM, John Rose <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> It depends, a minimal implementation as a single cell AGI or a single >> cell with a trillion duplicates AGI. I was hinting towards the latter. But >> here is something else to think of – >> >> >> >> Suppose the way we see things is not really how it is. And that happens >> often throughout history. Suppose that the way we see duplicates of things >> is wrong. So that a trillion bacteria duplicates are actually one organism. >> Change the dimensionality of the observer. It would be the same with >> people. To us individual people agents look like independent entities but >> if you tweak the dimensionality of the observation the whole human race >> over time can appear as one continuous organism. And as far as intelligence >> goes that is more correct IMO since we are multi-agent IOW one tabula rasa >> human isolated from the species is not intelligent and dies immediately. >> >> >> >> Just something to think about as it may solve related issues… >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* Steve Richfield [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Saturday, March 28, 2015 4:19 PM >> *To:* AGI >> *Subject:* [agi] 1% >> >> >> >> John, et al, >> >> We seem to have two subjects that are merging. I started out discussing >> potential halfway points - while you started out discussing single-cell >> intelligence. >> >> Suppose for a moment there is a method and associated undiscovered >> mathematics underlying intelligence, where the "minimum implementation" of >> intelligence might be VERY small - like single cell. >> >> There is plenty of evidence of this in experiments on the lobster >> stomagastric ganglion, where each cell does a specific job that has been >> identified in the laboratory. However, introduce a birth defect where fewer >> cells survive, and they organize differently to do the same job but less >> precisely. >> >> The behavior of some bacteria is VERY complex, complete with seek and >> avoid behaviors, eating habits, etc. >> >> >> >> Consider the following recursive definition of AGI: >> >> 1. Construct a minimal AGI. >> >> 2. Connect a bunch of them into a network. >> >> 3. Construct a network of the above networks. >> >> 4. Construct a network of the above networks. >> >> 5. etc. >> >> Perhaps the ultimate AGI program will look like a recursive factorial >> computation, only replacing the multiplication with a lower level AGI. >> >> >> >> In society, we have cells, networks of cells that form regions of the >> brain, networks of regions that constitute humans, networks of humans ... >> >> Perhaps what is missing in society is what is already there at the >> cellular level?!!! >> >> Perhaps "all" that is now missing in AGI is a theoretical understanding >> of how a single cell **IS** a complete minimum implementation of an AGI?!!! >> >> If true, this might bring AGI a LOT closer - and predict the failure of >> present approaches. At least this deserves a serious look-see. >> >> Steve >> >> ================== >> >> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:24 AM, John Rose <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 1 day ago - "Obama Administration Releases National Action Plan to Combat >> Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria" - $1.2 billion >> >> Very interesting. The microbes overcome everything we throw at them how >> could they be intelligent? >> >> People laugh about the concept of microbial intelligence. By many >> definitions they are more intelligent than us, we may lose this battle. >> Let's see, if intelligence has mass which I'm sure no one would dispute, >> and if we add up the mass of all human brains and compare that with the >> mass of all related molecular microbial intelligence I would say that by >> far microbes have more intelligence. Definitely. >> >> Or is that calculation, meant to be humorous, wrong? Intelligence doesn't >> have mass... >> >> "Microbes have more intelligence" <=> "Microbes are more intelligent" >> >> At some point does "more intelligence" beat out the "more intelligent". >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> AGI >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a >> six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back >> full employment. >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/248029-82d9122f>| Modify >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
