We are a good example of Intelligent beings, I mean in our point of view, we are an awesome starting point of an instance of an intelligent being. Being so it is quite logic to compare our conceptual models and/or approach in AGI alongside our own inner models. And I think it will drive to a better understanding of ourselves. Could things be different? Is there a better model for us to guide our objectives? How relevant could be going through this path? Although there are definitions about intelligence, it isn't an easy task to define it concisely, perhaps in a way that even a child could get it. It would be notorious to develop some protocols or even kind of languages (perhaps putting conceptual meaning in computational models) reversing the meaning of the challenge itself, abstracting it to a formal computational modal, or at least a passionate fairy tale, which would make us humans "fall in love" with it. What if intelligence is rather a protocol than a thing? A protocol could be applied in infinity ways, isn't it cool? __ Felipe C Miquilini
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Russ, > > Thanks for the links. I'll assimilate them into my database of papers on > it. Some I know of already. None of mine are in the list. Most of it is in > the class (I suspect) of 'possibly useful to understand a human meat brain' > but less so if you want to build an artificial brain. All interesting tho. > I spent the last 12 years studying the literature and doing the science. I > have thousands of papers and a whole library of books that cover this very > topic.. > > As far as I am concerned, the physics origins of the field system and its > basis as a control system is a done deal. It's actually rather simple. I > have done the 'conduction' version. Next is the rather nasty convection > version (electrolyte ions). Once the convection version identifies the > range of conditions under which it makes the same general kind of field > system (as the conduction version) then everything else follows as a an > argument about the field system origins. It was my PhD thesis and the > subject of some of my papers. I am working on the convection version > simulation at the moment with a couple of colleagues at UniMelb. So I > already have the EM field origins physics under control.It's my mission to > build an inorganic version of that physics, operating in a 'do what the > brain is doing, not exactly how it does it' manner .... as a path to > inorganic brain tissue. I already have a basis for the design. And I'm not > discussing the details because I have 'stuck my head in the maw of > commerce' and in that sad and regrettably necessary condition it's NDAs and > commerce BS from here on. The radically adaptive hierarchical nonlinear > control system will emerge as a result of this activity. > > My mission here is to get the relevant communities used to the possibility > that AGI can be made that does not use a computer and software, and what it > means for the 'science' of AGI. I really don't want to turn into a > neuroscience teacher here. I'll try and blog out what I can and keep you > all posted as I go. > > cheers > > Colin > > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Russ Hurlbut <[email protected]> wrote: > >> @Steve, Colin >> >> The link here provides a list of papers that I pulled together from prior >> research in hope of nudging the discussion along. I have not been following >> all of the details here, but would be interested in your reaction to any of >> these (mostly) divergent theories and models as it relates to Colin's >> approach. >> >> >> >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/myncbi/105aUd43l76Qk/collections/47987407/public/ >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:07 AM Steve Richfield <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Colin, >>> >>> I'm going to take a shot at restating your hypothesis in a more >>> physics-tractable form. The remainder of this posting are what I think you >>> are trying to say: >>> >>> Colin in effect says that the computational unit is NOT the synapse, but >>> rather is the ion channel. These are MUCH more numerous than synapses. >>> While the voltages seen in extracellular recordings are quite low, the >>> field GRADIENT near an active ion channel is HIGH - enough to have major >>> effects on nearby/contacting structures. Brains are a lot like a bowl of >>> spaghetti, and every place the "noodles" touch becomes a point of high >>> field interaction. We don't yet know what those interactions do, but we DO >>> know that there are a lot of synapses that interconnect contacting neurons, >>> so at minimum such points of contact are probably capable of spawning >>> synapses, if the "data" indicates a synapse would be useful. >>> >>> Then there is the far-field effects from neurons that are near but NOT >>> in contact. The activity (or lack thereof) should be an important parameter >>> to use in development, because it is an indicator of just how successful >>> learning has been throughout the entire system. Where learning has been >>> UNsuccessful, neurons should probably be more plastic in their >>> functionality. >>> >>> Ion channels are capable of fairly complex computation, including memory >>> (from ion accumulation and physical alterations), nonlinearities, etc. It >>> has previously been presumed that ion channels are just "pumps" that keep >>> neurons doing what neurons do, but the prospect for ion channel computation >>> can NOT be ignored. >>> >>> When a neuron becomes active, its many ion channels radiates complex >>> patterns of field-gradients, which could affect the operation of other >>> nearby neurons, especially if the ion channels in the other neuron were to >>> align themselves with a radiating neuron. >>> >>> While I now grok the importance of field gradients generated by ion >>> channels, I still don't see how/why this should affect consciousness any >>> more than it affects the many other functions of a neural systems. I am not >>> yet even convinced that consciousness exists - except in our minds as a >>> simplistic model for whatever happens behind our eyeballs. How do you link >>> consciousness (over other neural functions) with EM fields? >>> >>> C'mon; help me put Colin's hypothesis into a solid physics form. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18488709-8cf25195> | >>> 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/303/27000053-56584e86> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Felipe Carmona Miquilini ------------------------------------------- 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
