Colin I understand your point. It is clear. It is a valid point. However, I find it incredulous how you seem to be so utterly convinced that the physics was shunned by the industry. My evidence suggests you are partially informed.
Bearing in mind, I'm an independent researcher. Self funded, no strings attached, unbeholden. My research leads me where it does, and I follow that trail. Before any of my work was finalized, I scanned across emerging research in quantum physics and neuroscience, in order to test for future feasibility. I spent time with the mind of Brian Greene, and other prominent physicists. By no means did I ever envision myself to be involved with actually developing such a brain chip. The reason for this was that it seemed apparent that the world would do so, and then what would be lacking would be the scientific component of firmware, quantum-compliant logic. That is the area I focused my research on. My stuff would be integrated with such a chip, become it, and more. As far back as 2014, I proposed on YouTube the notion of life on a chip. Even before that, the notion (as a potential project) was discussed with a prominent engineering firm. I'm telling you this, to help you understand that your perspective, though valid and duly respected, is not totally reliable. Surely, as a neuro-scientist you are familiar with the empirical research into em fields and the physics of the human brain? I accessed such research as part of the body of knowledge I had to contend with. All I've been thinking about for the past, 2 years is the activation of em fields as information carriers of the logic that was being developed. For that reason, I still follow emerging developments of a prominent chip manufacturer in China and infer chip development on the hand of emerging robots from Japan. It's a never ending part of R&D. So many aspects one has to always bear in mind and integrate into a feasibility model. As a pragmatist, I'd like to encourage you to get your head out of your ass and to get of your purist, high horse. Your upset with industry and those anogramed parties on the list is a noisy distraction from the real work that lies ahead. Do the work yourself then, if you deem it seriously neglected. You do not need funding to propose testable designs. You need theoretical research that would be feasible in empirical studies. Design the experiment. Maybe the world is simply not ready for you yet. Maybe, for now, the majority of the industry is happy to fail, rinse, repeat in an overwhelming possibility of AI applications. It's emergence at work. In all probability, structural functionality would eventually follow. We cannot control that process of technological evolution. Instead, you could be developing the next 40 years of science, which Brian Greene, in 1999, stated still had to be developed. Twenty years later, where is the development? It's there, but as you correctly pointed out, not mainstreamed. I cannot do that kind of development myself. I'm not smart enough and educated in that field. It seems though, you cannot develop my component of research either. That is my passion and my gift. Tapestries are not weaved by a single strand. How do we connect these dots into a reality you see needs to be made practical? Would you be the one to do so? So, instead of lamblasting everyone around you for their alleged lack of enlightenment, maybe it is upon you to lead the way? If not, you are nothing but a noisy critic and a cynic, which is not such a bad role to play either. The world need free thinkers with critical abilities. Still, that would be a great shame. From what I've seen, once you drop your superior attitude, the sense you talk makes for incredible reading. There's so much to learn from your clear perspective. Now we need to see more from you, the physics thereof. In summary. I get it! I get it! Now what are we going to do about it? PS: If age was a qualifier of superiority, the Dinosaurs would've been developing AGI today. Rob ________________________________ From: Colin Hales via AGI <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 20 August 2018 2:39 AM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. Rob, As someone 62 years old and had an entire career in industrial automation, that has worked full time on AGI via neuroscience, since 2003, most of it in academia, I disagree that I have missed anything. I have sailed the ocean of literature into all its corners. This is so frustrating. I keep saying it, but the actual topic keeps getting missed. Let's drop the names. AI, AGI, whatever. Let's get back to basics. Let's see if I can spell it out in a way that works. The _science_ involved in this is a science of natural general intelligence. When you do science, part of the process involves the creation of an artificial version of the natural original. This, along with the study of the physical nature itself, forms the ' empirical science' part. The other half of the science is called 'theoretical science'. In this, abstract formalisms describe the nature. You can explore these formalisms by computer and get them to reveal things and predict things about how the nature appears when you look. For example, the standard model of particle physics ... You can compute that model and predict a Higgs boson. That's the theoretical half. You can build a super collider and make Higgs bosons. That's the empirical science. Ok? This is universal. It applies to everything I science without exception. Except for natural general intelligence. Here, in the science, and only here, the two have been confused. There's a hypothesis that's used (in the comedy) called the 'substrate independence hypothesis'. Call it SIH. Given enough resources I could put the brain's signalling physics itself (the electromagnetism that does the signalling, in the exact same physical form it has in a brain. There's no abstract model of the brain. The result is not a computer. There's a truckload of 'computation' in the exact same form it has in the brain. There's no _computer_. I put these chips in a robot suit. In front of me I claim I have an 'artificial general intelligence'. Call it robot A. This fits the behaviour that everywhere else gets called the empirical science. This time, it's the empirical science of artificial general intelligence. Now we switch to the theoretical part. I do an abstract model of the same brain. I put the physics of a computer on the chips instead. I code up the abstract model and run it on the computer. Everywhere else in science, this is part of theoretical science. I put that computer inside the same robot suit. Call it robot B. In front of me, what have I got? Everywhere in the science conducted to date, robot B gets called 'artificial general intelligence'. Is it really an artificial version of the natural original? So we now have 2 physically identical robot bodies in all respects except for their brains. Brain A has natural brain signalling physics on the chips. Brain B had the physics of a computer on the chips. Utterly different physics. Q.Which is actually functionally equivalent to the 'natural general intelligence'? A. Formally, scientifically, Nobody knows. You. Me. Nobody. Everybody assumes the SIH true and does Robot B. Fails. And then does it again. Rinse. Repeat. Fail. For 65 years this goes on. Wars rage on twitter about the equivalence as we speak. The character Ragy Scarum, for example, did it again during this email thread. Know who it is? 😁 Fact. Nobody ever does Robot A to do the real empiricism done everywhere else, where robot A _and_ robot B would be built and compared/contrasted .... This would be the (heretical, in the comedy) real empirical test of the SIH. Done without assuming it's truth or falsehood, but by measurement. We are talking about a unique, singular deformed science. I am not claiming the SIH true or false. I am claiming _nobody_ knows and showing what the science that empirically tests it looks like. Under exactly what conditions is the SIH true? What exactly goes missing if the SIH is false? You do not know. I do not know. Nobody knows, because the real science of it never gets done. There is not even a sign, anywhere in the literature, of a plan for robot A, the empirical science of an artificial version of natural general intelligence. So when I say AI or AGI hasn't started yet, that's exactly what I am saying, practically. This is about a deeply structurally deformed science supported by a community unaware of it. In order that the science go on as it is, believing robot A and robot B are identities to the extent of never doing robot B, is to participate in the world's first science that was born deformed and generationally trained to maintain it. That's what the 'centuries old ....' reference is about in the comedy. If you turned up with a 'Higgs bosons don't have to be created to prove they exist' hypothesis and asked to cancel the construction of the Large Hadron Collider, you'd be laughed out of town by the physicists. Yet for the biggest boson in the history of all bosons .... The EM field system of the brain that creates all the brain's signalling and adaptation, that's exactly what has happened. Nobody ever builds that boson. Instead the entire physics of the brain is simply thrown out, wholesale. Ironic, as well as being extremely naive, for the 'most complex single object in science'. The only difference in the practice that accounts for it is the 3 generations+ of workers untrained in real empirical science. This is a cultural problem. Can you see this? Before you answer, remember, I am not asking you to believe anything about what computers can or cannot do. You can wander off and use computers and do miracles. All irelevant to this discussion. I don't care. I care about the science. I am talking about a deformed science and exactly what it looks like and exactly what it would look like if it was normalised to look like science does everywhere else. This is not an opinion. You can measure the deformation in the science. It's an empirical fact of the science. But the reverse .... The proof of SIH justifying the lack of empirical science testing the SIH's possible falsehood, does not exist! This singularly deformed science, presented as a joke, is the message of the comedy. If only it was as funny in reality. The entire future, and all $ and effort ... As a bet placed on an assumption of SIH truth that is never questioned, and for which there's a perfectly servicable, centuries old science practice ideally suited to sorting it out, and it gets ignored in this one and only place in science. Have I made my point? Colin On Mon., 20 Aug. 2018, 8:27 am Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Colin I accept your empassioned argument. I call what I do AGI, for the simple reason that it encodes tacit and explicit knowledge into systems models, which are transferable onto a computational platform. Now, that is not AGI yet, but to my understanding it resembles one of the critical building blocks that would help enable eventual AGI. What I do, pertains to AGI. However, about a year ago I posted a sound theoretical and semantic argument on this group why the term AGI was superfluous to the context of machine intelligence. As is typical, no one bothered commenting on it. Yet, the term AGI stuck, so we are being forced to use it. In my view, AI is AI, at different levels of operation and maturity. Still, let's go with the flow and keep it in context of a version of AGI, shall we? This methodology I developed then - at that point - resembled a KM component, having features for 1-step mutation, diversification, and recombination. Quantum based in meta design and evolutionary in operation. Here, I mean Darwinian in evolution as a complex-adaptive system, not some other mantra. The result constitutes a scientific method within a holistic, systems framework to enable systems-based communication. It has its own language and rules. A full-blown ontology. Not a computer language, but a symbolic way to express itself in, sufficiently effective to achieve the aforementioned complex-adaptive characteristics. Again, that does not constitute AGI. Merely some critical building blocks towards AGI. Still, if we could manage to place a dynamically-driven knowledge engine on a computational platform, and leave it be in a location where natural stimuli may, or may not affect its behavioral responses, and it actually auto-responded to adapt to these stimuli, and showed assimilation of these environmental changes to a degree that same stimuli were seemingly adapted to in learning, we may be ready to start thinking about such a platform as edging towards AGI functionality. Now, again, I'm not going to call that AGI, but would be bold enough to point out that the resultant machine would offer up critical building blocks towards achieving AGI functionality. Suppose then, we could empirically translate all knowledge this machine encountered and encoded in such a standardized language, and integrated it with the knowledge base of this machine? When we saw this knowledge being synthesized, aged, recombined into new contexts, in a traceable manner, would we then concede the makings of AGI? Furthermore, when we observed this knowledge in states of regression, new insights extracted from the source, and then recombined as new knowledge to be synthesized with predictive contexts, would we concede AGI functionality? When such discoveries were taught to source, via autonomous updates, and so on progressively, would we reconsider AGI functionality? I think Turing had great vision, but nonetheless vision limited by the next step of foreseeable computer engineering - a psycho-social need for humans to relate to machines. AGI should not be tested for by how it mimics humans. It's way beyond the performance of average human beings. It should be tested by how far it can autonomously extend human-centric functionality, with self-motivated intent. To do so, would mean to know humankind. AGI then? Simplistically speaking, I envision a machine with the ability to autonomously spot an environmental situation, and motivating itself under its own power to successfully act upon that environmental factor, to would so with increasing success. I may envision other machines too, even sub-species of machines. But this one, empirically, it must be hard coded in its value set (it's social conscience if you will) to do good to mankind, meaning to apply its resources and comprehension to know what constitutes good to mankind and its environment, and have the knowhow to autonomously apply effective complexity to achieve the specific level of eco-systemic good in that particular context. To do so, off course it would have to ensure its own survival and the survival of any goal-centric enabled network of autonomous machines. Then, would we call that AGI? Assuming the phletora of sensors available to enable humano-robotic features such as hearing, vision, speech, and touch, I would be bold enough to say that in such a machine, emotion (as feedback-driven motivational competency), would become possible. I can say this with certainty, because these systems models have already been completed and tried and tested. The framework exists. The method exists. Many, other modular components exist. My next job would be to assemble such a machine and achieve that which you so candidly assert no possibility of exists. I would spend the rest of my life doing so, which is rather short in terms of scientific development. However, you have no right to discount the 23-odd years I've spent on this journey with a solid vision guiding me. I do not blame you for your perspective, but based on what I've experienced during practical tests of these models, and subsequently submitted as well-disguised field research to the IEEE for review, and more, you are simply not properly informed yet. Not all knowledge is published or paraded plainly, meaning we can only see as far as our eyes can reach. In my case, I only showed that, which I chose to show, for my research reasons. As a scientist dealing in the realm of possibility let me challenge you then with your own words. What if, this was meta AGI? What if... Rob ________________________________ From: Colin Hales via AGI <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Sunday, 19 August 2018 11:06 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. Knock. On Sun., 19 Aug. 2018, 6:11 pm Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Colin You're right, off course. My point is; if AGI would not deal with this level of abstract, human communication of temporal, emotive states, how would it ever be taken seriously to solve highly-abstract problems? Poets do indeed have their say. 😉 Next year, I hope to be living in Panama. From a stronger base, I'm quite certain I would then be able to start addressing the big issues in life in terms of a pragmatic AGI application. For example, using AGI-tech to help understand and mitigate the unfolding, Fukushima nuclear disaster, which is affecting the globe. There are life-existential problems to come to grips with and find resolutions for regarding; health, safety, food and water security, and environmental contamination. There's more than enough work for all of us interested in the field and no time to waste. Not all of us would be able to run away to Mars. I think that is primarily where AGI development should be heading in. Rob Rob, There are eras in science history where an entire thread of a particular science works diligently and thoroughly for a very long time, and then finds itself facing a shift that renders the entire era irrelevant or misguided. AGI is one of those eras. There are hundreds of folk like yourself, that follow ideas. It's all great stuff and you never know what will result. In what you just said about your Panama plan and environmental work, you are presupposing the very things my little story questions. You presuppose that AGI science has actually started. For the reasons in the story (yes, it's all there!) AGI hasn't started yet. Instead, vast cliques of automation have been labelled AI and AGI and GAI and sometimes ASI. All valuable work. But none of it is founded on a properly formed science, with a real empirical basis. That's the problem. Everyone assumes that to pick up a computer leads, potentially, to Artificial General Intelligence. A culture born in the 'rapture' of the story. I severely challenge that presuposition in the comedy and in my book. Dressing a computer-based brain in a robot suit does not do empirical AGI. It is an elaborate form of theoretical neuroscience. All these issues are in the comedy. I am trying to get everyone to realise it. Real AGI science will only ever start when brain physics is put on the chips. It's big science, chip foundry work, and hasn't ever even been thought about until now, let alone started. So when you specify that you're heading off to do the things you say, and I'm sure you'll do good work, I'm making a case that you shouldn't be calling it AGI. And I don't just single out you. You're in great company. I mean everybody. The whole thing. Since 1956. I am trying every means at my disposal to get this message out. Nobody is working on AI. Nobody is working on AGI. Everybody is working on automation using theoretical models of the brain and calling it an artificial version of intelligence. When it's not. This mistake has only ever happened in this one place. And it could only ever happen at the birth of computers. And it did. Turning this around and correcting the science is what the story is about. At these points in science history, those that turn up with the correction to practice don't usually have a good time. I can confirm that! It's no fun at all. Also, in these periods of shift, non-standard forms of communication can help dislodge the glasses of the received view. And occasionally you get to send the whole thing up. I hope your adventures are rewarding and impactful, but just imagine if you're mistaken in calling it AGI. Just ask yourself that 'What if ....' Cheers Colin Artificial General Intelligence List<https://agi.topicbox.com/latest> / AGI / see discussions<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tc4740af26e8cd0ee-Maa3b3c86f9ac5f6678993f69> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tc4740af26e8cd0ee-M6f0f8d17b502d56c7343ff93 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
