Matt Each, human brain is uniquely different. According to a reputable source of obstetrics I once read, it was asserted how - in context of the miracle of natural birth - 80% of births have a degree of brain imperfection. If you wish, a degree of brain damage.
Neurosurgeons would probably agree that every "shock-induced" human brain structure (in the sense of clinical brain damage) is absolutely unique. Therefore, there exists no, true archetype for the exponentially-complex human brain as mind. In other words, it seems likely that 80% of human brains could be expected to be clinically unique. Perhaps the symbol of a human "brain" being developed by Google et al is just their individual version of a human-inspired brain? It conforms to their worldview. The modern, human brain as machine according to Google et al! Such ventures are plausible ambitions. However, it does not make the magical leap across the biological abyss to suddenly qualify as an archetypal, human brain at all. Humankind have been making images of natural biology for ages. There's nothing new here. What Google et al are doing is just different. In a binary universe of the human mind, all of this has been done before. All permutations of a binary-inspired humanity has been calculated. How else do you think the human brain - before it manifested as mind - came into existence? Empirically, it had to be motivated by a superpositioned binary universe, an emanating, binary wind of perpetual possibility. As a singular source of a finite, binary universe of the human mind in action. Possibly it's a case of; "We understand, therefore Earth exists." Suppose the story went like this: One day, by chance, emerged the very-first version of the human brain as we know it today, replete with its On-and-Off-Switch architecture. At first, it might've been but a geometric fractal in crystaline form, a recombination of some DNA, an informational organism thrust into the waiting, geometric realm of cause and effect. From there, it followed and developed its DNA-architectural fusion like any other organism would. And now, we are here as we know here to be. Seems simple enough, doesn't it? At best, Google et al are mimicking what they think should be the modern human brain as mind. At best, they're probably going to get it 80% incorrect. The real kicker is; they would not even be able to verify such findings in a valid and reliable manner. Even if they made such claims, the Public would not be able to verify it in a valid and reliable manner. Thus, more conjecture - for now. Not hard science. Maybe one day then? But not, unless, we resolve the origin of the human brain as mind. My argument supports the notion that - with regards the human brain - you could not hope to prove the generalized claims you've been making here as if in an empirical manner. For your lack of knowing my, peculiar brain, you cannot be correct at all. As such, your assertions are pure conjecture. You're applying conjectures to more conjectures. I don't think you understand the true design of the human brain as mind. But who cares what I think, right? So then, who cares what structure my brain as mind, and the structures of others' holding similar, subjective opinion relative to purported, and actual, fact? Ours is but the generalized perspective. Such is our minds in action. For AGI to make it into computational existence, would require a deep understanding of the human brain as mind. For your curiosity, perhaps you would make that your goal to understand. Rob ________________________________ From: Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 14 October 2019 02:13 To: AGI <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [agi] Whats everyones goal here? The brain has enormous redundancy everywhere. It uses 6 x 10^14 synapses to store 10^9 bits of long term memory and 10^9 bits of inherited knowledge. But parallel systems are like that. Google's server farm of a million CPUs each carry an identical copy of Linux. Each of your 10^13 cell nuclei has an identical copy of your DNA. It's a trade-off between speed and memory. On Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 12:36 PM James Bowery <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: There is an enormous amount of redundancy in the abstract thalamocortical architecture evincing small Kolmogorov Complexity in description. While I understand "the devil is in the details" of this evolved structure (not the least of which is the fact that it elides that the cerebellum's neuron count is a super-majority of the brain's), there seems to be a vast theoretic vacuum of the requisite simplicity. It's the dog that didn't bark. That's why I take Hecht-Nielsen's Confabulation Theory seriously: Not because I believe, as he did, that he "solved the problem of cognition", but rather that he has a first order approximation of the neocortex (indeed thalamcortical) structure -- at least one barking dog -- an _approach_. It's rather like a framework for compression like mixture of models, rather than the models themselves. On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 12:07 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 10:09 AM <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Isn't that massively inefficient? It'd take 100 times more storage/computation to do the same thing as a weighted net no? The neural models I use in the top ranked text compressors use a lot less than 12-24 petaflops and a petabyte of RAM. But the language modeling is rather rudamentary, nowhere near AGI. But I would be happy for you to prove my estimate wrong. And one more thing. That's one human brain. To automate all labor, you need several billion times that. Current technology uses about 1 megawatt per petaflop. Maybe neuromorphic computing could get it down to 100 kW per brain. Maybe economy of specialization could reduce it to 1 kW, which is 50% of global energy production. But shrinking transistors alone won't do it. If we can't do the optimization, it's going to take nanotechnology, moving atoms instead of electrons. The brain uses 20 watts. It can be done. 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/Td4a5dff7d017676c-Mb6dec56c4ea8c19e7751d482> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Td4a5dff7d017676c-Mb4780170a7776942612394d3 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
