We need to create an infrastructure e.g. the *Institute of General Intelligence, *elect/appoint a board of directors to manage the entire organization*.* Only a small fraction of funding that is currently allocated for the BRAIN Initiative or Human Brain Project in EU would be enough to build the first hybrid system . This project can be the bucket list for an entire generation of computer scientists / neuroscientists whom should collaborate- our brain uses less than 30 watts to perform all kind of "intelligent" computations. Having first completed this step would increase our chance to deliver a more "synthetic" approach as Colin proposed.
Here is the rationale: a.Why use a digital computer to simulate/map or emulate the whole brain • It cannot express all forms of computation that are built within biological structure (see neuroelectrodynamics); • Needs many megawatts to power the system (huge issue); • Requires billions of dollars; • Cannot generate emotion, consciousness... • No reliable model for brain diseases. b. Why not shape a biological structure, connect it with a digital computer use machine learning (e.g DL) and perform all kinds of computations - Can we build a conscious machine http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5224. • Naturally, emotion, consciousness ....are expressed • Can be used as a model for therapy for about 600 brain diseases • Can be connected to a laptop, iPhone uses digital and biological computation together which can make any digital computer highly interactive • Far less amount of funding required. AGI can become fast an academic discipline, it can attract funding not only from private companies My previous answers on FB 5.Does an AGI need to be conscious? Yes, it has to be conscious otherwise AGI can be dangerous (see 9). 6.Can AGI be creative? If we build hybrid systems AGI can become creative 7.Will AGI have emotions? Biological structure embedded in the hybrid system will allow any AGI system to experience emotions 8.How far off is AGI? With current technology the first prototype can be implemented in less than 5 years, far less than the BIG detour (2001 - 2015) 9.Will AGI be dangerous? The system needs to be conscious about its actions, otherwise it can be dangerous An example : the missile crisis in Cuba, less intelligent actions can lead to an apocalypse for everyone ( it should be embedded in consciousness) It's time for action Best, Dorian *Note:* EM interaction establishes communication in case of a more powerful form of computation, five years ago we call it - neuroelectrodynamics. A classical model or a quantum model can be used to describe a natural phenomenon, they are our models . Almost everything can be approximated ,simulated on digital computers only if one has the algorithm. The simulation in this case requires a huge cost, it is highly inefficient and in addition many characteristics developed within biological structure are completely lost. Current trend in AGI can continue another 5-10 years however a general loss of credibility will follow - a less "intelligent" path. Saving the AI/AGI idea should be a priority, we do have the technology to keep alive, grow and "connect " neurons and any already developed algorithm (e.g AI algorithm) can be used since the digital computer will be an important part of the hybrid system. On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben, > > I don't know what Alan's problem is, but it appears he doesn't understand > forums in general, and this forum in particular. > > As Alan's first objection to threads that has been running for several > days, Alan rises up to request that the subject be killed!!! This is absurd. > > The whole purpose of threads is for people to follow the ones they are > interested in, while ignoring the others. Apparently Alan is unable to > participate in this very simple process. > > The bases for Alan's request are also absurd as explained below. > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Alan Grimes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm about three days away from formally requesting a killthread on this >> EM fields crap. >> > > Ben, you might want to think about moderating Alan. > >> >> 1. Electromagnetism has been Well Understood (tm) for about 140 years now. >> > > So what. This doesn't seem to be an issue. > > >> 2. By [nearly] all accounts, EM fields in the brain are secondary to its >> operation. >> > > What accounts? > > >> 3. Neural Science is a well established field that runs parallel to AGI >> and, yes, they do VERY careful science. >> > > You obviously have never worked in a neuroscience lab. However, others in > this discussion, including myself, HAVE worked in these labs and know the > severe limitations of what people think they know about how neurons work. > > >> 4. AGI is not, formally, a science. > > > I can't speak for the others here, but I suspect that most people here > agree, but believe that it should become a science once we know enough to > talk about the prospective internals of an AGI system. > > >> It is a branch of engineering. >> > > B.S. If this were true, computers would have been thinking for decades by > now. There is presently NO recognizable science supporting AGI. AGI has yet > to rise to being science, let alone rising to be engineering based on > science. > > 5. In the interests of getting things done, simplifications have to be >> made wherever possible. >> > > So what? This doesn't seem to be an issue. The issue here is determining > what is essential, and what can be "simplified". There are many opinions, > including yours, none of which have significant evidence to support them. > > >> 6. We are not trying to simulate a brain, we are trying to identify what >> characteristics are actually required to create a thinking machine. >> > > Agreed. So what? > > >> 7. The standard of evidence, at this point, to indicate some kind of >> non-Turing computation is required to produce thinking is >> extraordinarily high at this point. >> > > "Turing computation" isn't really a well defined term, e.g. does it > include analog computation? > > I have posted in the past regarding the potential need for bidirectional > computation in AGI, which can be simulated on Turing systems with a loss in > speed which is proportional to the logarithm of system size. If > bidirectional computation proves to be needed, than Turing systems may > indeed NOT be up to AGI. Fortunately there are non-Turing approaches to > bidirectional computing. > > Note that Colin's proposal also includes bidirectional computing, though > we haven't yet discussed that. > > There is a pretty strong case for bidirectional computing, so don't clutch > your Turing machine too closely. > > 8. Once AGI is created it is highly probable that it could be further >> enhanced by means of mystical physics, ie quantum fields, and stuff, but >> right now it's only a distraction. >> > > ONLY if "mystical physics" proves to be unnecessary. I have seen NO hard > evidence either way. > > >> 9. The brain may indeed utilize mystical physics to some extent, we >> should be extremely cautious about brain emulation, even if you want to >> stick your head in the sand about the identity issue. >> > > We are a loooooong way from brain emulation, but it would sure be nice to > be able to emulate a single neuron that can do ALL of the things our own > neurons do - fast learning, abandoning useless functions, reducing power > demands for slow/rare phenomena, etc. - all things that an AGI will also > have to do. > > 10. I have some pretty strong hypothesii about how the brain works but >> I'm frustrated by my inability to test those hypothesii for lack of a >> simulation environment or a robot. > > > Join the club. Oh, I see you already have. > > I don't have either. I have been >> stuck at this state of not having a testing platform for ten years > > > Only ten years? I can see you are a newbie at this. I have had this same > frustration for >40 years. > > >> and >> it's driving me nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > THIS explains a LOT ... B-:D> > > >> (this is what >> my minecraft post was about...) I saved up about $12,000 out of a >> required $16,000 to get a Nao but then I've been unemployed for three >> years and have no job prospects in this awful economy. =((((((( >> 11. Meanwhile, I have not been chewing up list bandwidth talking about >> how great my untested theory is or spending much time deriding other >> list participants. >> > > There ARE other paths, e.g. invent something relating to AGI, get a > patent, find someone to promote your invention, find a VC, start a company, > etc. > >> >> BTW: Hplus-talk mailing list seems to be down and the admin forwarder is >> down too. >> >> IQ is a measure of how stupid you feel. >> > > Aha, you very obviously do NOT feel stupid at all here, so, by your own > measure, your IQ must be VERY low. > > OK, sorry (but not very sorry) I beat you up here, but understand that it > is often quite difficult to examine possibilities that violate your world > model, which is obviously your difficulty here. Just because something is > obviously "crap" doesn't mean that it is crap. If you can't deal with this, > then stand aside for others here who CAN deal with it. > > Steve > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/17795807-366cfa2a> | > 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
