> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Steve Richfield <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Jim, >> >> Again, I think I see the POV to solve this. All animals, from single >> cells to us, are fundamentally adaptive process control systems. We use our >> intelligence to live better and more reliably, procreate, etc., much as >> single-celled animals, only with MUCH richer functionality. Everything fits >> this hierarchy of function leading to intelligence. >> >> Then, people like those on this forum start by ignoring this and trying >> to create intelligence from whole cloth. This may be possible, but there is >> NO existence proof for this, no data to guide the effort, etc. In short, >> there is NO reason to expect a whole-cloth approach to work anytime during >> the next century (or two). >> >> However, some of the mathematics of adaptive process control is known, >> and I suspect the rest wouldn't be all that tough - if only SOMEONE were >> working on it. >> > Erm.... guys. This would be me.
I am working on it. For well over a decade now. Cognition and intelligence is implemented as an adaptive control system replicating, inorganically, the natural original called the human (mammal) nervous system. I simply replicate it inorganically. Tough job but I am getting there. There's no programming. No software. Just radically adaptively nested looping processes. In control strategy terms it is a non-stationary system (architecture itself is adaptive). Control loops come into existence and bifurcate and vanish adaptively. The architecture commences at the level of single ion channels and nest at multiple levels that then appear in tissue as neurons doing what they do, but need not appear like this in the inorganic version. You don't actually need cells at all. These then nest at increasing spatiotemporal scales forming coalitions, layers, columns and finally whole tissue. All inorganically. All the same at all scales from an adaptive control perspective. Power-law scalable. Physically and logically. In my case, for the conscious version the hardware includes the field-superposing, active additional feedback in the wave mechanics of the EM field system produced by brain cells at specific points. The fields form an addition/secondary loop modulation that operates orthogonally, outside/through the space occupied by the chip substrate. What I am starting with is the 'zombie' or symbolically ungrounded version. It doesn't produce the active field system (missing a whole control system feedback mechanism) and uses supervised learning (externalised by a conscious human trainer) to compensate for the loss of the natural role consciousness has as an endogenous supervisor. It will, in the zombie form, underperform in precisely the way all computer AGI underperforms. This is what is missing when you use computers to do it all. You end up with a recipe (software) for pulling Pinocchio's strings. Whereas my system bypasses the puppetry altogether. It makes the little boy, not the puppet. However you view it, there's nothing else there in a brain except nested loops that have power-law responses in two orthogonal axes: sensory and cognitive. Adding the field system to the sensory axis (e.g. visual experience) or part of the cognitive axis (e.g. emotional experience) provide the active role for consciousness implemented through the causal impact of the Lorentz force within the hardware. I suppose it'd be an 'adaptive control loop' philosophy for cognition and 'EM field theory of consciousness' combined. No computing needed whatever. Just like the brain. Most of the last ten years has been spent figuring out the EM field bits! That I am now omitting, knowing what I lose when I do that (i.e. consciousness). Teeny weeny Zombie version 0.0 this year I hope. No EM field generation. I call it the 'circular causality controller'. I aim to add the EM fields later. That part requires $millions. It's chip-foundry stuff. So chalk me in under this 'adaptive control loop' category for AGI implementation please. I know this forum is a 'using computers to do AGI' forum so I'll just continue to zip it. I haven't mentioned it much over the years because it seems that most of you aren't interested in my approach. For reference and for the record.... I am the 'AGI as adaptive control' guy. cheers colin > >> I suspect that when the answers are known, it will be a bit like spread >> spectrum communications, where there is a payoff for complexity, but where >> ultimately there is a substitute for designed-in complexity, e.g. like the >> pseudo-random operation of spread spectrum systems. Genetics seems to >> prefer designed-in complexity (like our brains) but there is NO need for >> computers to have such limitations. >> >> Whatever path you take, you must "see a path" to have ANY chance of >> succeeding. You must have a POV that helps you to "cut the crap" in pursuit >> of your goal. Others here are working on whole-cloth approaches, yet >> bristle when challenged for lacking a guiding POV. I see some hope in >> adaptive control math. Perhaps you see something else, but it MUST have an >> associated guiding POV for you to have any hope of succeeding - more than a >> simple list of what it does NOT have. >> >> Steve >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5> | >> 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/303/11721311-f886df0a> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > 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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
