About self: you don't like Metzinger's neurophilosophy I presume? (Being No One is a masterwork in my view)
I agree that integrative biology is the way to go for understanding brain function ... and I was talking to Walter Freeman about his work in the early 90's when we both showed up at the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology conferences ... however, I am wholly unconvinced that this work implies anything about the noncomputationality of consciousness. You mention QED, and I note that the only functions computable according to QED are the Turing-computable ones. I wonder how you square this with your view of QED-based brain dynamics as noncomputable? Or do you follow the Penrose path and posit as-yet-undiscovered, mysteriously-noncomputable quantum-gravity phenomena in brain dynamics (which, I note, requires not only radical unknown neuroscience but also radical unknown physics and mathematics) -- Ben G On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > doowwwwnnnn....below. > > Mike Tintner wrote: > > Colin: > > others such as Hynna and Boahen at Stanford, who have an unusual hardware > neural architecture...(Hynna, K. M. and Boahen, K. 'Thermodynamically > equivalent silicon models of voltage-dependent ion channels', *Neural > Computation* vol. 19, no. 2, 2007. 327-350.) ...and others ... then things > will be diverse and authoritative. In particular, those who have recently > essentially squashed the computational theories of mind from a neuroscience > perspective- the 'integrative neuroscientists': > > Poznanski, R. R., Biophysical neural networks : foundations of integrative > neuroscience, Mary Ann Liebert, Larchmont, NY, 2001, pp. viii, 503 p. > > Pomerantz, J. R., Topics in integrative neuroscience : from cells to > cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK ; New York, 2008, pp. > xix, 427 p. > > Gordon, E., Ed. (2000). Integrative neuroscience : bringing together > biological, psychological and clinical models of the human brain. Amsterdam, > Harwood > > > > Colin, > > This all looks v. interesting - googling quickly. The general integrative > approach to the brain's functioning is clearly v. important. > > A Distinctive Paradigms/Approaches. But are any distinctive models or more > specific paradigms emerging? It isn't immediately clear why AGI has to pay > special attention here. Can you do a bit more selling of the importance of > this field. > > I can't overstate the importance of the integrative biology approach. There > are properties in the electrodynamics of whole collections of brain material > *which have nothing to do with connectionism*, but are intimately and > critically involved in the regulatory processes of learning. They appear in > NO current models of the brain. They are visible in the brain when treated > as an excitable cell syncytium and involve *all of it*...astrocytes are > just as important (maybe more so) as neurons. And this includes all forms of > connectivity: radiative, conductive and via gap junctions, endocrine/genetic > regulation You do not get this story unless you treat the whole matter > hierarchy as a single unified system in all its contexts. Integrative > neuroscience is the banner under which this kind of work will tie it all > together into one story. > > B Models - I notice some researchers are developing models of the brain's > functioning. Are any worthwhile? I called here sometime ago for a Systems > Psychology and Systems AI, that would be devoted to developing overall > models both of the intelligent brain and of AGI systems. Existing AGI > systems like Ben's offer de facto models of what is required for an > intelligent mind. So it would be v. valuable to be able to compare different > models, both natural and artificial. > > There are so many different folks trying so many different approaches to > brain models/intelligent behaviour/cognition... the only guide I can give is > that those that are dealing with what is actually there: the reality of > brain material from a QM/cell biology upwards viewpoint, are the only ones > on the real path to a complete picture of intelligence. Anyone that stops > their explorations at some point in the past (say with connectionism or some > other abstraction) and then dives out of the biology with a pet abstraction > and starts exploring that avenue alone, has impoverished their view of > intelligence and is operating on an assumption which is open to criticism in > a bio-world where nobody can claim to have all the answers yet. COMP was an > early version of this process. Connectionism/Neural nets was the 80s/90s > flavour of the same thing. Now we are finally getting to whole picture: > dynamical systems and brain electrodynamics. Walter Freeman's camp is the > most developed...although all he's attacked empirically is the olfactory > bulb! So if you must have somewhere to go...he's the man. "Many-body quentum > electrodynamics" is the key phrase. > > My current research is operating at the computational chemistry level. > Major holes in knowledge operate even at this most basic atomic level. As a > result I know that all models around the world are a-priori impoverished and > therefore open to critical defeat i.e. I can support no-one in their claims > as to their model as a trajectory to real AGI. I am doing my research > precisely because of the impoverishment. > > C Embodied Cognitive Science. How do you see int. neurosci. in relation > to this? For example, I noted some purely neuronal models of the self. For > me, only integrated brain-body models of the self are valid. > > Self emerges implicitly through embodiment and situatedness. These are not > optional because specific physics is inherited by that very situation. Model > it and the physics is gone, along with intelligent behaviour. In my (a Elk > theory of consc.!) model, the concept of self is so far of no design value. > In cog sci generally studying it as a phenomenon hasn't lead anywhere useful > (that I can build). In a science where 'first person' is an explanatory > pariah, the needed fundamentals are missing from the toolkit...I don't > expect any sense to come from anywhere. An entity with a P-conscious > (occipital/visual scene) projected depiction of the external world > automatically places a self (the projector) inside it and 'self' becomes the > same as everything else: something about which knowledge is accrued, from > which behaviour may emerge. There are heaps of papers on the self. I read > them, but they tell me nothing I can build. > > D Free Will. An interest of mine. I noted some reference that suggested a > neuroscientific attempt to explain this (or perhaps explain it away). Know > any more about this? > > Free Will and Free Won't(my favourite!) are high level aspects which I > don't have a clear story on just yet. I am focussed on the lower levels > entirely. When that is consolidated I will have something cogent to say. I'd > rather study it later empirically with the chips I want to build. The > motivation for my AGI to do anything at all remains problematic...I have my > ideas but it's early days...FW is an important idea, but I can't explicitly > 'build it', so it's not an early design issue. As with most other aspects of > cognition I suspect that FW is a high-level (organism level) emergent > property which has its ultimate basis in quantum mechanical > randomness/indeterminacy. My chip architecture will incorporate the entire > causal chain, thus inheriting the same indeterminacy, so at this stage > theres nothing much more for me to add. One day. > > - - - - - - - -- - - - - > Not terribly satisfying. I know. There's no quick route through the > information. > > The only guide I can give is that there is a 'trump card' approach that > clears nomothetic dross like a hot blade through butter: *Base your AGI on > an "artificial scientist" model*. The clarity that emerges is stunning, > and it's all empirically testable. > > regards, > > Colin Hales > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
