Dorian, On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Dorian Aur <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > > .... > d. development of cognitive mathematics e. wet lab conformation f. simulation lab > > y.Pharmaceutical industry > > z..Marketing > Steve > > > 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- 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
