Colin Thank you for responding. I understand the personal frustration with the system and with us, but it would not change the selective realities of our future world. The technology for making lives better for hundreds of millions of sick persons in this world has existed for decades. Maybe it is time to ask why such technology has not been used to general, effective purpose? Unfortunately, many already know the answer to this troubling question of humanity. It has the ring of personal interest to it, survival of the fittest, a world of artificial scarcity.
Consider the historical case of Tesla alone, or if you wanted to, add the development and application of the atom bomb to the sum. It is the condition of the human heart. Yet still, we've had oil wars and billions of people without electricity and basic, human necessities. Somehow, "science" cannot fix that. Likewise, suppose a future, global scenario needed a computing source such as which you have dedicated your life to, and all indications are that it does? Do you really think the "investors" would share it with the whole world? No, they won't. Case in point: Commercial space ships can only carry X passengers at a time. The same is the case with AGI and all other "competitive edge" technologies. Just imagine if you were the only country in the world that could still compute when all other computers failed? Such is possibility then. Take the red pill if you must, but to my mind life with the blue pill is more worth living. If it weren't for computer technology, many extinct languages - as mankind's heritage - would not have been preserved and you would not be sitting there having this conversation with us. Governments tend to grab things. This is their constant nature. Some of us may have trouble with such morality, but it pays the rent for too-many scientists to matter enough. In the greater scheme of things we are but cosmic dust, each to his purpose. If your life's journey was to write a book, which advanced civilizations may one day discover in a time capsule and study, then so be it. Personally speaking, I commend you for your stay. I say "Wow! Go for it! May you be successful as soon as possible." No idea how you are going to get away from a modelless system though, of any kind. Even a perfect-state machine has a model of operation. Even a truly-random system has a model of randomness it holds to. According to Greene, all universes seem to hold to a quantum model. Maybe that is where the scientific problem lies for some of us. We cannot imagine a modelless universe, for it would probably not be humano-scientific anymore. In conclusion, are you not then, perhaps, suggesting the existence of a universe of a pattern of 1, as a supermeme, which was how I understood your initial gambit, and if so, why did you not just come out and say it? Regards, Rob To: a...@listbox.com From: col.ha...@gmail.com Subject: RE: [agi] Re: Starting to Define Algorithms that are More Powerful than Narrow AI Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 14:37:26 +1000 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 From: Benjamin Kapp Sent: 14/05/2015 10:55 AM To: AGI 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 <col.ha...@gmail.com> 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 <col.ha...@gmail.com> 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 <nano...@live.com> 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: col.ha...@gmail.com To: a...@listbox.com On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Steve Richfield <steve.richfi...@gmail.com> 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 <col.ha...@gmail.com> 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 | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
