Excellent Colin! We shall start with proposals for the board of directors. They will need to make strategic decisions and oversee the entire management of the Institute. It should include , former academic, professional mentors and retired executives from all connected areas:
a.Businesses b.Computer science, electronics c. Artificial Intelligence - e.g. DL .... y.Pharmaceutical industry z..Marketing Proposals for the board of directors are welcomed. Dorian *If everything is carefully selected in advance failure is not an option*. On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM, colin hales <[email protected]> wrote: > +100 to Dorian. Nailed it good. > > Dorian is one of the few people that understands the difference between > 'nature as computation' and the use of computers. Like me he merely wants > to solve the problem of AGI and can see another way. Read his book > Neuroelectrodynamics. I bought it and read it. It's not exactly how I > suspect it might be but its exactly the same category of approach and like > me he actually did the science to reach it. > > Your agreement with anything is not required. What is required is and > adult scientific appreciation of scientific potentialities in this pinnacle > of all problems. There is another way. Fail to integrate it into you world > view at your peril. > ------------------------------ > From: Mark Seveland <[email protected]> > Sent: 15/05/2015 4:59 AM > To: AGI <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [agi] Institute of General Intelligence > > +1 Dorian. Mark likes this. > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Dorian Aur <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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> >>> >> >> >> [The entire original message is not included.] >> *AGI* | >> > *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
