Hey all, I have also been researching intelligence as a function of adaptive control without uding this exact terminology for the past 10 odd years.
My paper building on the subject has been accepted for presentation at the AGI Congerence Ben organizes in July in Berlin: http://rationalmorality.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/TranshumanPhilosophy_formatted.pdf Would be great to get feedback. Cheers. Stefan On 04/05/2015 1:41 AM, "Steve Richfield" <[email protected]> wrote: > Colin, > > WOW, there is more than one of us!!! > > This means we can actually have a conversation about this stuff. > > I will now sprinkle some comments in with your reply to get this > conversation going. I suggest addressing the several issues one-at-a-time > in separate threads. > > On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 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 appears to be some confusion between form and function. A > computation is a computation regardless of how it is performed, e.g. EM > fields, electrolytic tanks, analog computation, electromechanically, etc. > > "The differences between electrical, chemical, and mechanical processes > disappear when the scale becomes small enough" approximate quote by John > von Neumann at a neuroscience conference. > > There's no programming. >> > > I presume you mean high-level programming. Of course there would be > SOMETHING (firmware, wetware) at a low level to make things work. > > No software. >> > > See above. > > >> 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 >> > > I hadn't really thought about individual channels, but of course you are > right. > > >> and nest at multiple levels that then appear in tissue as neurons doing >> what they do, >> > > For the rest of our viewing audience, there is a VAST chasm between what > is commonly taught about neurons, and what has actually been observed in > the laboratory, but never captured in a reproducible form. The belief that > if it cannot be reproduced than it is not "science" has effectively > destroyed the communications channel between neuroscience labs and AGI > people. For example, only a tiny fraction of neurons (apparently those with > long axons) actually produce spikes - the rest appear to compute and > communicate in a continuously analog form. > > but need not appear like this in the inorganic version. You don't actually >> need cells at all. >> > > I presume that "cells" in an inorganic version would simply be a label > placed on a particular level in the hierarchy. > > 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. >> > > Why simulate fields with fields, when computers can do exactly the same > thing computationally? Note that you do NOT need to sum the products of > voltages times the inverse squares of the distances to every other point in > the system, only the inverse squares to the NEAREST points, which > themselves form a sort of "shield" from more distant points, and which > themselves already contain the effects of the more distant points. > > However, I wonder what the computationally OPTIMAL thing to do might be, > e.g. limit the radius of consideration, etc? You are proposing to simulate > 3-D fields in 2-D, but maybe 3-D fields are used only because that is what > can be done in wetware. Here, a better grasp of the math involved seems to > be in order. > > Control systems are well understood. However, no one seems to have worked > (much) on *adaptive* control systems theory. > >> >> 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. >> > > This sounds considerably MORE difficult than simply putting a 'droid into > a real physical environment. > > >> 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. >> > > Yes. > >> >> 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. >> > > My failure/epiphany is that I don't see how cognitive is anything but > higher-level computation that considers the prospective effects of > potential actions taken to control the system. > > Remember, "consciousness" probably bares NO resemblance to what is > actually happening in our brains that appears to up to have the > characteristics we refer to as consciousness. We have dysfunctional models > of consciousness that should NOT be carried over into designing future > conscious systems. > > 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. >> > > You are either seeing something here that I haven't yet grasped, or seeing > something here that I have long ago rejected.. > > >> I suppose it'd be an 'adaptive control loop' philosophy for cognition and >> 'EM field theory of consciousness' combined. No computing needed whatever. >> > > This is ALL simply 3-D analog computing implemented in wetware. > > >> Just like the brain. Most of the last ten years has been spent figuring >> out the EM field bits! >> > > What have you figured out? > > >> That I am now omitting, knowing what I lose when I do that (i.e. >> consciousness). >> > > I don't (yet) see the connection between between EM fields and > consciousness. If this is truly a hierarchical system, then either EM > fields are needed for everything, or for nothing. > >> >> 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. >> > > ... or as in my recent patent, a clever algorithm that can be efficiently > implemented in available hardware. > > It's chip-foundry stuff. >> > > ANYTHING you can make on a chip can be simulated in a computer, albeit > VERY slowly. No foundry would even think of building anything in silicon > that had NOT first been simulated. > >> >> 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. >> > > If these guys are ever to build anything that actually does what they are > hoping for, then they simply MUST connect with the computational processes > needed to implement such things. If someone here seeks to do something ELSE > that is unable to do what adaptive control systems can do, then obviously, > it can never ever do what they are hoping for. So, unless Ben, et a., > thinks it is out of order here, I think we should look deeper into adaptive > control implementations. > > HOWEVER, remember that what you are talking about IS computation, it CAN > be simulated on a digital computer, and the computations can probably be > done MUCH more efficiently by divorcing the implementation from the > physicality of wetware, e.g. EM fields, etc. > > The challenge comes in finding mathematical expression of the task at > hand, while would (hopefully) lead to a (more) optimal solution (than in > wetware). > > I wonder... If as some here have suggested our computational "goal" is to > "understand" things well enough to reduce the information content of what > we see to as little as possible, then what better thing to sense than the > "noise" in the EM field?!!! If every neuron successfully did this, they > would function in the channel-reducing form hypothesized on various past > postings. Perhaps the thing that has so limited retrograde propagation NN > implementations is that they have lacked this "world view" of their impact > on the entire system?!!! > > I haven't mentioned it much over the years because it seems that most of >> you aren't interested in my approach. >> > > There are many talkers but few doers here. The doers WILL carefully read > our postings and accept what makes sense (to them). Our challenge is to > "translate" our POV enough so that they can grok what we say from their POV. > > For reference and for the record.... I am *the* 'AGI as adaptive control' >> guy. >> > > Correction: Change "the" above to "an". > > Steve > >> >> 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> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >> 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/303/3869219-6583aa40> | 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
