Ahh, a bright mind. Chat me, I may have some answers. or email me if you prefer. But I'm one of those weird kooks that actually enjoys verbal communication.
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > I had this realisation in 2001/2. At that point I put my ear to the ground > and I looked. Hard. In 2004 in frustration I joined academia and had > unlimited access to the entire world's publications. Doing a PhD, I kept up > with folk at the bleeding edge in lectures, seminars and workshops and > conferences.....I soaked through all sorts of 'tech announcement' analysis > and 'breaking' stories. > > My ear is still on the ground. I wait. Today I still wait. > > Sometimes in some weird materials lab someplace an announcement is made > that has keywords that might be construed as along the lines of my > proposition. I then look and have, so far, found nothing. > > You know what usually happens? *"Breakthrough X happens in materials or > quantum mechanics. Woohoo!*" Headline. Then everyone gets excited and > says wow! "*We may be able to solve the AI problem when we build a new > computer with it"* > > ...... and thus they throw a potential solution at failure. Time and time > and time again. Vanadium Dioxide is my favourite exemplar. Recent materials > for memristors another. There was yet another of these literally this week! > > > http://www1.rmit.edu.au/browse/RMIT%20News%2FNewsroom%2FNews%2FMedia%20Releases%2Fby%20date%2FSep%2FTue%2030/ > > Go and look, excited...and yet again...no cigar. > > Science has begun to make materials that can solve the AGI problem. What > they are not applying it to is that right *solution*. There are materials > that can do what I want to do. Vast nonlinear control systems. But nobody > ever chooses to solve the problem with it. Instead everyone thinks "lets > build a computer" Fine. Computing is great. It's just *not* the solution > to AGI! > > >60 years of trained-in habit entails a systemic blindness to the way > science was traditionally operating: by building it to understand it By > knowing that unless you could build it you don't understand it. And by > 'building it' I do not mean use a computer! Instead of letting nature do > computation computers and computing model it. Not the same thing. As I > write this I can hear the reader's brain grind on my words. How can they be > different, you think? Well *in exactly the way I have described in > all these posts. and nonstop for over 10 years*. > > So ironically now we are overprepared for real AGI and the only thing > stopping this happening is us. We keep choosing not to solve the problem. > Instead it's *if only we had a computer powerful enough" and "Moore's law > blah blah...." *receding rainbow of failure. > > I intend to write a book on this issue! It's bizarre. > > Maybe someplace there is a lab that does my proposition and it's all > tucked away. I doubt it. You know why? Because bodies like DARPA keep > throwing $gazillions at doing it with computers (this includes all existing > neuromorphic chips of any kind.....where *models of reality *stand in for > reality). Unless this is a massive smokescreen or unless left hands and > right hands are not talking at a breathtaking level (conspiracy theory > bollocks).... then this indicates that out here in the real world of > people and a world overdue and in desperate need of it, we have literally > programmed ourselves (in tacit culture) to fail in AGI and appear to have > actually locked ourselves in a failure loop.... > > Then I turn up, after decades of thinking about robots and doing control > systems in business.... and because I am old enough to have seen how it > used to be....and.... because I was not in science, I had none of the > programming. > > And I say "*hey guys why don't we try this?! *(how it was done for 350 > years before computers)." > > And guess what? Here I am in 2015 saying the same damned thing. And all it > is is what the original cybernetics folk *would have done* had computers > never been built. And by now AGI would be real had they continued (the > likes of Ashby et. al.) without computers and with the neuroscience we have > now. Indeed today, neuroscience itself would look entirely different had > this happened. So the damage is not just confined to AGI. People have been > hurt because of the lack of knowledge. The failure to look at solving AGI > without computers *has actually hurt people*. Sick people. > > Some days I wish I had never seen anything, and taken the blue pill and > re-joined everyone in the matrix. So here I am, some kind of Morpheus with > a red pill and ... yeah metaphor overdose. You get the picture. > > cheers > > Colin. > (This email or something like this will appear in the new book) > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Colin >> >> Fascinating thread and subject matter. Just a general question please. >> >> How certain are you that some governmental scientists somewhere have not >> already done this research and constructed such bio-machines? You may be >> surprised, or disappointed even, to find that you're not the only person on >> this list who thinks along these lines. >> >> Publications, as indicators of technological progress, usually are a few >> years behind the actual times and hardly-ever reflect the true >> state-of-the-art research, e.g., the GRAPE system. >> >> I'm asking specifically, because I noticed quantum-detailed publications >> in this field around 2009/2010, which trends well with field-test-ready >> prototypes for 2014/2015. >> >> The other reason I'm asking is because I've been studying a particular >> phenomenon, which systemic behaviour you might actually be describing to >> me. Unfortunately, details are subject to a commercial NDA, etc. >> >> Looking forward to your reply. >> >> Rob >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 09:11:33 +1000 >> Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Starting to Define Algorithms that are More >> Powerfulthan Narrow AI >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Steve Richfield < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Colin, >> >> Two quick thoughts: >> >> 1. Your description of ion channels sounds a LOT like a Hall-effect >> device. I suspect that ion channels may be **VERY** sensitive to magnetic >> fields!!! Aside from implementing natural compasses, Hall-effect may be a >> part of their computational functionality. Note in passing that Hall-effect >> devices are FAST, so it may not be beyond reason that there might be some >> really high-speed analog computation going on in ion channels!!!. >> >> >> Individual channels have a (relatively) slow stochastic nature. You need >> about 10 tightly bunched. All 'computation' then sits atop that overall >> average regularity, resulting in both types of signalling that then do all >> relevant computations. See the book HILLE Ion Channels of Excitable Cells. >> I don't have to bother with the stochasticity. I can build filamentary >> currents that get straight to work fast. Currents that then produce the >> same 2 signalling types. >> >> >> >> 2. You might be able to model some of the things your are thinking about >> with a fish tank full of salty water and structures made of Play Dough. You >> will also need a battery, a voltmeter, and some insulated wire with exposed >> ends. Electrolytic tanks have been used to model many complex EM things. >> >> Fishtank full of Gatorade and playdoh and radioshack toy instruments.... >> bliss!!!! Yay!!! I knew this had to become fun eventually!! Can I use a 3D >> printer too? :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi again, >> Yes the *potential* drops off as 1/r and the dipole as 1/r^2 as you say. >> Not the field intensity. That is 1/r^2 and 1/r^3 resp. But this is >> irrelevant. Don't confuse potentials with the fields. I wrote an article >> on this >> >> Hales, C. G. and S. Pockett (2014). "The relationship between local >> field potentials (LFPs) and the electromagnetic fields that give rise to >> them." *Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience* *8*: 233. >> http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00233/full >> >> The line source you mention doesn't actually contribute to the field >> system in any functional sense for subtle reasons. This is another broken >> aspect of the thinking. >> >> You have to deal with the actual physics of ions in water and in ion >> channel pores in space and the details of the charge transport as applied >> through Maxwell's equations,,..NOT the physics of a model. Just because a >> resistor is in a model and predicts voltages correctly does not mean that >> the fields in nature are the fields of a resistor. In general: the >> physics of the field system is not the field system of the circuit element >> models. >> >> The *same total * *current *has 3 lives: 1) Intracellular 2) >> Transmembrane and 3) extracellular. >> >> In terms of contribution to the actual functional field system (2) >> Dominates both (1) and (3). >> >> To see this: >> >> The ion transit speed and transport dynamics in the extracellular space >> and intracellular space is 10000-50000 times *slower *than transmembrane *and >> radically diffuse and diluted*. Almost non existent as a charge *density*. It >> is the electric field that matters and when you do the math the field due >> to the axial current (line source) is negligible because the current does >> not involve a functional charge density even though the total current is >> the same. ergo negligible E field contribution. >> >> In contrast, the transmembrane portion (of the exact same total current) >> is radically confined to an Angstrom-level pore-width and along a path >> length in a very particular direction 20-50 times longer than anywhere else >> in tissue (through the thickness of the membrane). The transmembrane ions >> are like bullets from hundreds of *parallel* machine guns in comparison >> to traffic in the extracellular space and the intracellular space, where >> ions are confined by water to almost zero path length and bounce in totally >> randomised directions. None of this detail is in any circuit element model. >> >> It is charge *density and *current *density *(not current) that matter >> for field generation. Charge density and current density are radically >> different in each phase of ion transport (1), (2) and (3). Hence they >> produce different fields. >> >> I am doing the full convective simulations of this over the next few >> months. The failure, over decades, to look at the actual ion transport >> mechanisms in the ECS and ICS and contrast them with the transmembrane ion >> channel current has caused yet another stuff-up in understanding the field >> system. The only people that actually know this are in *microfluidics* >> and it is a modified form of microfluidics equations that I will solve >> (with the water flow velocity set to zero). >> >> When you actually compute the magnitude of the real electric field >> produced by the transmembrane ion traffic as totalled by tens of 1000s of >> cells within in a 500um radius sphere they can easily add up to that needed >> to effect each other even though the field drops off as 1/r^3. This is a >> very short distance. It is the *gradient* of the potential, not the >> potential that matters. The E field is a very complex vector sum that >> dominates even though it drops off faster with distance. The E field in the >> Lorentz force does the work. >> >> You can choose a million exotic circuit elements and find a part of a >> neuron who's potentials may be modelled with it. That does not mean that >> the neuron 'is' one of those things. Its not diodes yet there's lots of >> diode like things going on. It's not a resistor yet there are lots of >> behaviours that obey resistor-like laws. You can view neurons through a >> model-lens made of SR or bar fridges and hockey sticks and igneous rocks >> that produces the same voltages and current. .... and on and on and >> on.....and you are welcome to do that to suit what you are doing. In none >> of it does it tell you what the actual natural material is doing in >> relation to EM fields. >> >> That is why I build what I will build. I build what the brain does, not >> what a model of the brain does. I can't help it if this is the way the >> brain is. If I found anything different I'd be building that instead. >> >> When I compute (1), (2) and (3) I'll send the results to the list. It'll >> be a while. >> >> Congrats! My work here of showing you the potholes on the road to >> understanding EM field origins is done. :-) I think we are officially >> grokked out. >> >> cheers >> colin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Steve Richfield < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Colin, >> >> You have described regenerative operation, which is a near-field sort of >> thing and not capable of sensing small things at a distance where signals >> drop off as r^2, HOWEVER, I just realized that the field from a line >> (rather than a small dipole) source, like from an axon rather than an ion >> channel, drops off LINEARLY with distance. Hence, at distances that are >> short compared with axon length, regeneration might be enough to work. >> >> I just didn't see any need to stick with a purely regenerative model, >> when SR completely sidesteps the limits of regeneration AND there is plenty >> of evidence of SR in neurons. >> >> Regarding the past tense of grok - it becomes past tense when you can no >> longer grok - like when you get Alzheimer's or die. Until then it is an >> active sort of thing, like your fields, and so remains in the present. >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 8:09 PM, colin hales <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Steve, >> The fields originate in a dissipative evanescent dipole that exists as >> long as the action potential transmembrane current exists. EM field >> feedback is in modulation of distant network signal timing and propagation >> phenomena. Positive, negative whatever. It emerges at a higher >> organizational level that has nothing to do with the physics originating >> the fields. >> >> The magnetic field comes from a brief transmembrane current. The electric >> field is a result of a battle between diffusion and electromigration in the >> immediate vicinity of the ends of the very same transmembrane current. If >> the transmembrane current is large and long enough (requiring lots of >> collocated ion channels)... Then this causes a depletion of ion charge on >> one side and accretion on the other....dipole big enough to contribute to >> signaling at distance. It exists as a dissipative cascade that is >> momentary, stops and then equilibrium is chemically restored. Think of it >> as a capacitor discharge, stop, recharge. In the EM field feedback the >> moment of discharge is determined in part by impinging E field from >> elsewhere in the tissue. That may constitute a positive feedback from >> distances a long way away. >> >> Positive feedback also exists within the longitudinal propagation of the >> action potential. That is regenerative. Models usually depict this as >> resulting from potentials and currents. I suspect that it's actually the >> magnetic field that is very strong at distances of um. That magnetic field >> tickles distant ion channels located in the same membrane (because the >> magnetic field is strongest in the plane of the membrane) into the >> conformation change that causes the next transmembrane current that >> then..... But that magnetic field role something I'm speculating ...doing >> simulation over the coming months. Regardless of how you think is positive >> feedback involved in action potentials. >> >> So there's 2 kinds of +ve feedback. One in action potential propagation >> down the membrane, one impacting timing transversely through the tissue at >> the speed of light. >> >> I hope one day to make hardware that does both in the same way the brain >> does it. >> >> Lots of + feedback. Right there. >> >> I already have this in the design. So where does this lack of positive >> feedback issue come from? I can't see it. >> >> There's pencils standing up and falling down in vast numbers in the >> design already. So to speak. SR is just not telling me anything I need, at >> least in early replication efforts. >> >> Are we grokked yet? And is that the past tense of grok? >> >> Cheers >> Colin >> ------------------------------ >> From: Steve Richfield <[email protected]> >> Sent: 10/05/2015 6:34 AM >> To: AGI <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Starting to Define Algorithms that are More >> Powerfulthan Narrow AI >> >> Colin, >> >> Here you have made exactly the same point I was trying to convey in my >> immediately-preceding posting on SR... >> >> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 3:08 AM, colin hales <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> >> Replicating voltages is _not_ replicating fields. Gauge invariance makes >> the relationship degenerate. An infinity of different field systems can >> produce the same voltages. That very degeneracy is the reason why electric >> circuit theory exists! >> >> >> This SAME gauge-invariance would doom your ion-channel theory UNLESS >> there is some sort positive-feedback mechanism at work to extract the >> INFORMATION from the EM field. If not SR, then WHAT? >> >> >> I am rather excited by the recognition of something that is so obvious >> and whose lack fits the failure etiology of half a century perfectly, >> including the lack of the actual empirical test that is needed to justify >> neglecting the fields as essential physics. Neglecting the fields is >> entirely accidental. >> >> >> I agree. >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *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> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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/303/11721311-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> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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/303/11721311-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/303/26941503-0abb15dc> | >> 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/303/27079473-66e47b26> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Regards, Mark Seveland ------------------------------------------- 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
