Colin, This is a pretty good rant. There isn't any reason why both variations of your approach and the computational approach, which you disdain, with or without some of your elements included produces results. Eventually. It might be some type of hybrid down the road which really takes off. The best thing to do for now is just to keep working.
Mike A On 5/13/15, colin hales <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > Can you imagine what it is like for me to confront this? > > If you (scientists that is) assume X for the first time in history and then > spend 65 years and $Billions testing X as an unproved hypothesis and do not > succeed. ... It doesn't prove X wrong. Yes! Agreed. But that's not the > point! > > I'm not Sherlock Holmes but.... surely 65 years of assumption X failure > combined with an untried alternative based of returning to a 350 years of > science norm that was abandoned for the first time in history ... That > speaks directly to the facts about assumption X..... is deserved of more > than the strange culture of shallow shoot from the hip dismissal that is > operating here. > > How many times do I have to say this?.... > > I am not saying I am right or that everyone else is wrong. I am saying _we > do not know_. Nobody knows. But _everybody is acting like they know when > they don't. > > How can this assumption confine 100% of people and investment for half a > century without discussion and with no actual science to test it other than > assumption? > > So why not try it? Just by way of being professional as scientists. So that > the target: AGI gets built on a scientific basis. Instead of what we have > now. > > The tech arguments you have about implants have nothing to do with what I am > proposing. I have been in a bionic eye project. You think i haven't thought > for years about exactly these things? Benefit of the doubt maybe? From 40 > years of experience and the facts I present? > > Guess what all these implants are doing?... Beating up the EM field system > in tissue with blunt EM field instruments. Yes! Irrelevant? Yes! > > My proposition is to replicate the original underlying field system as per > all the detail of the last N emails and will not repeat it. It's all in the > literature. They fact that you think your comments valid tells me, with > respect, that you haven't actually come to grips with my technical > proposition: > > ..... which is to replicate the field system within a control system > approach. No computer. No models. All natural computation like the brain. By > replication of the fields. > > I am proposing that maybe, instead of 100% of investment in something with > no science basis and that has failed so far.... That maybe...say.... Let's > be greedy... 20% be invested in actual science for once so that the other > 80% has a science footing? So that expectations can be properly managed? > What is so effing problematic? How many more $Billions and decades have to > be bet on a cultural-preference-roulette- wheel for BLACK when there's RED > that nobody sees because of colorblindness no one knows they have? > > Anywhere else in science they'd be going "HOLY SMOKE! WHAT WERE WE > THINKING?" and leap at it. Not here. Don't you wonder about that? > > Otoh if there is a kind of club operating here... The ' Solve the big > problem only with tool X or live with whatever it does' club. > > Monty Python flashback. > > "You shall cut down (solve) the mightiest tree in the forest (the biggest > problem in science) ....with ... A (red) HERRING you think is a chain saw." > > I live in hope this is not the case. Somebody has to stand up for the > science basis of AGI Sorry to be rather 'strident'. It's not personal. > Banging my head on this brick wall is taking its toll. It's been 13 years. > > So how about.... > > "Yikes! Colin! You may be right! This is a big hole in our thinking! I can't > do anything about it myself...because we are using computers and can't > engineer the physics you need to do.... So how about I put you in touch with > <someone> and meanwhile I will recognize your ideas as something valid and > possibly mission critical ... That must have investment ... That our > community has missed ... Because we and AGI will all be better off if your > ideas are properly examined." > > How about that? Is anyone here capable of this? > > I can live with being proved wrong scientifically. Can anyone else here? > Rhetorical question. Just think about that. > > If I am right then... What does it mean for you? For AGI? Think about that. > > Cheers > Colin > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Benjamin Kapp" <[email protected]> > Sent: 14/05/2015 10:55 AM > To: "AGI" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Starting to Define Algorithms that are > MorePowerfulthanNarrow AI > > The idea that "to prove you don't have to do what i suggest you actually > have to do it" is a false claim. Surely if someone created an AGI in a > computer that would prove that your approach isn't necessary. > > Again cybernetic implants seem to disprove your claim. Blind people have > had their sight restored (to some degree) by having cybernetic implants > wired into their optic nerve. The eye is considered part of the brain, it > has neurons and fields, but when you take out the eye entirely, and replace > it with a video camera humans can still see. But certainly the camera > doesn't reproduce the same sorts of fields the eye does. As such this part > of the brain can and has been reproduced in silicon. > > The success of algorithms inspired by reverse engineering the wiring diagram > also seems to be in favor of a neuron action potential explanation for the > mind our brain makes. When you disconnect the hemispheres of the brain > people act as though they have two minds. The field interactions across the > hemispheres would still be largely identical with the small exception of > those fields associated with the small connective tissue. But the field > associated with this small connective tissue is completely dwarfed by the > fields generated by all the neurons of the rest of the entire brain. If the > fields were so critical to the mind wouldn't you expect the person to retain > the unity of their mind? > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:51 PM, colin hales <[email protected]> wrote: > > Do I really have to say this again? Have you not read what I have been > saying? > > Whatever my tech reasons are... They don't matter! > > Because you and nobody else scientifically knows that you don't have to. To > prove you don't have to do what I suggest you actually have to do it, and > contrast with computers. > > Not assume it. > > You don't know. I don't. Nobody knows. That's my point. > > This "I can't see why ...." is not an argument. > > Do the science and come back with "I have done the experiment and now I know > that computing models of intelligence and natural intelligence are > identities under all conditions." > > Please go back through the relevant threads and see this position stated > time and time again. > > Your position has no science basis. You don't know. I don't know. Nobody > knows. The science is not done. To do the science is what I suggest. And I > also suggested how the premise you have can be false. > > Do I have to say this again for anyone? Do you not see how this problem > works? > > In asking me what you have you deliver scientific evidence of the problem. > > Cheers > Colin > > > > From: Benjamin Kapp > Sent: 14/05/2015 9:13 AM > To: AGI > Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Starting to Define Algorithms that are > MorePowerfulthan Narrow AI > > > Why can't you model the thing your building in a computer? Why can't you > model the fields of the mind? Do you believe there is something necessarily > material about minds? Isn't this disproved by cybernetic implants which > have provided people with restored cognitive functionality despite being of > different material? > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:00 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 yo > > [The entire original message is not included.] > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: 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
