It seems that one can replace parts of the brain with cybernetic implants and if individuals with implants report restored functionality then we could say the implant is a model of the brain/mind/AGI for that part of the brain. By continuing to replace more parts of the brain in this fashion we could make steady progress towards creating AGI.
The idea that you shouldn't create software and only study the brain seems wrong to me. Software is just applied mathematics, and mathematics is just formalized reasoning. To say you shouldn't write software is like saying you shouldn't express your ideas and reasoning's in an unambiguous way. It makes sense to me that when you understand a part of the brain you should create a "unit test" of sorts in software in which you replicate this understanding in functional code, as proof that you know what your talking about. Otherwise you would be like most of the researchers in the domain of the mind sciences, one who gets a bunch of empirical data and applies a measure of "statistical significance" and interprets what this data means, although the interpretations are rather monstrous in their scope, and as such no computer scientist would dream of creating a unit test for such large pieces of functionality, or if they did they wouldn't expect to be right without going through a great many iterations of bug fixes and the creation of many sub modules. The incredible difficulty of creating something that actually works helps computer scientist realize how absolutely absurd the claims of scientist in the mind sciences often are. It would be like creating a 100,000 line piece of software and expecting it to work on the first go.. All mind science research ought to just dump their empirical data into the internet and leave the interpretation out until they demonstrate reproduction of those empirical findings in AGI. Because then they would be certain what is going on, because they would have a working mathematical model that reproduces it! Does this make sense? On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dorian, > > Ok, I agree with what you're saying here. > > I would say that this mixes two two problems: building an AGI and > understanding how the brain works. Of course if we fully understand how the > brain works, then we can probably build a synthetic one. I also have little > doubt that neuroscience needs more computer science to make progress. The > brain is essentially a computer science problem, and computer scientists > who try to understand it purely from abstract models will also be very > limited. > > What I wonder is if understanding the brain is the most effective path > towards AGI. Maybe it is, but maybe reverse-engineering the brain is a much > harder problem than creating a good AGI algorithm from scratch. It could > even be that we need the help of some AGI to finally understand the brain, > because maybe we are not smart enough for that. > > Cheers > Telmo. > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Dorian Aur <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thank you Steve. Telmo, before starting to analyze brain recordings ten >> years ago, I would have fully reinforced your view regarding Turing-complete >> machine and brain like simulations. >> >> Here is the main problem, we have two distinct categories: >> a.Scientists whom imagine how the brain works without having direct >> knowledge >> of the real brain, they build models, AI theories or simulate "the >> brain" >> b. Scientists whom record, analyze data, build brain computer interfaces >> and try to provide therapy. Even their “access” to the real brain data is >> highly limited. >> Between (a) and (b) it is a huge gap. >> >> Building a hybrid model as the first step can change this entire trend >> which started 60 years ago, a fast access to the “real brain” data will be >> granted for anyone interested to build models, AI theories or simulate the >> brain >> 1. We need a charismatic leader(s) and a board of directors to shape the >> entire strategy build rapidly the infrastructure of the institute. >> 2.We need reliable ways to facilitate international collaboration, no >> one whom likes to do research in AI, DL, AGI,...software/hardware >> development should be left behind. >> Any idea how to move fast with (1) and (2)? >> >> Dorian >> >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Steve Richfield < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Telmo, Colin, and Dorian, >>> >>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Dorian, >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Dorian Aur <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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); >>>>> >>>> >>>> All computable functions can be computed by any Turing-complete >>>> machine. It is not possible for a biological substrate to perform >>>> computations that are impossible to a digital computer. >>>> >>> >>> THIS particular point is stupid for BOTH sides to argue. It weakens BOTH >>> sides, and leads to needless stupid divisions of efforts and organizations. >>> >>> Simplistic "Turing-complete" machines have some SERIOUS utility issues >>> for many applications, probably including AGI. Sure they can in theory >>> simulate anything, and in so doing they can compute anything, but there are >>> VAST areas where they slow to a standstill when faced with real-world-sized >>> problems, because for many computations the time they take to compute grows >>> considerably FASTER than the complexity of the systems they are emulating. >>> For example, simulating electric circuits with programs like SPICE, >>> execution time grows as n log n on ALL present-day computers except >>> analog computers, and for us, n is REALLY BIG. Further, if Colin's EM >>> field theory is correct (I think it is), growth in execution time may be as >>> bad as n^2, with n representing ion channels rather than neurons, so n would >>> be really astronomical. This would represent a computational brick wall, >>> probably exceeding the efforts of civilization to EVER surmount, so any >>> successful development would have to sidestep such insanity. >>> >>> I suspect that Colin, in seeing a situation where everything affects >>> everything, thinks it cannot be simulated or otherwise computed on a >>> conventional computer. For small-scale research purposes I suspect this is >>> simply a reflection of Colin's disconnection with simulation technology. >>> However, for large-scale AGI-like systems, *Colin is more probably >>> right than wrong* that simplistic "Turing-complete" computers are and >>> *probably >>> always will be inadequate for the task*. >>> >>> No, this doesn't mean that we can't build AGI's, it just means they >>> won't have Intel processors in them, because there ARE prospective >>> architectures that can compute things that are WAY beyond what any >>> imaginable extension of a PC can do. >>> >>> The apparent reason why there isn't presently much effort developing >>> such systems is that they won't run existing benchmarks any faster. What we >>> need are better benchmarks, like the ability to simulate large circuits, >>> rather than faster computers to run present-day stupid little benchmarks >>> that are COMPLETELY disconnected from AGI requirements. >>> >>> To illustrate one prospective architecture, a large FPGA-like chip that >>> wired up programmable analog components instead of simplistic digital >>> components could be used as a processor that takes a BIG bite into such >>> applications. Development cost estimates run into the hundreds of millions >>> of dollars, so start collecting your lunch money. >>> >>> So everyone, unless you can somehow argue that there is any good reason >>> to even discuss this particular point BEFORE we know MUCH more than we now >>> know about how a *successful* AGI might function internally, let's all >>> agree on sane behavior and stop arguing this particular point where BOTH >>> sides are more probably wrong than right, at least at some level. >>> >>> Steve >>> =========== >>> >>>> computers are already conscious. Maybe some people are not. How would >>>> you know? >>>> >>>> >>>>> • 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> How? What is special about biological substrates that is required to >>>> generate emotions or consciousness? Do you have any theory? >>>> >>>> >>>>> • 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). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Conscious natural intelligences can be extremely dangerous. The danger >>>> of AGI is related to our inability to understand the consequences of >>>> providing an utility function to a super-intelligence (since we are not >>>> intelligent, we cannot foresee which steps the AGI might take to increase >>>> utility). There is also the danger of bootstrapping and evolutionary >>>> process, then AGIs can start to compete for our resources, etc. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 6.Can AGI be creative? >>>>> >>>>> If we build hybrid systems AGI can become creative >>>>> >>>> >>>> By what mechanism? >>>> >>>> >>>>> 7.Will AGI have emotions? >>>>> >>>>> Biological structure embedded in the hybrid system will allow any AGI >>>>> system to experience emotions >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is magical thinking. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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) >>>>> >>>> >>>> What about the ISIS people? Are they conscious? What prevents an entity >>>> from being conscious but having different values from yours? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Telmo. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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> >>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/25129130-ee4f7d55> | >>>>> 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> >>> <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/303/25129130-ee4f7d55> | >> 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/303/26973278-698fd9ee> | > 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
