On Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 9:04 PM Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote:
> it's gonna be fun. Killer hard work. But fun. A real inorganic artificial > neuron (compartment, actually) made of the same fundamental physics a > neuron uses. Somebody has to do it.😊. > Ashby did this in 1952. He built a 4 neuron network out of vacuum tubes and mechanical components. Design for a Brain https://g.co/kgs/5kt72Z I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish. Ashby demonstrated simple and highly abstract adaptive behavior. Newer models with millions of connections simulated on computers have demonstrated vision, language, and robotics. I understand your theories about AGI. You believe it requires consciousness. You blame the lack of success of AGI on the fact that computers can't be conscious. But you have no theory about what consciousness is or how it works. You can't even define a test for it. What hypothesis are you testing by building a single neuron? What is the outcome you expect if your hypothesis is correct? > Cheers > Colin > > On Thu., 26 Dec. 2019, 6:21 pm Nanograte Knowledge Technologies, < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> ok Colin Hales. We'll see you in 12 months' time and then know what you >> imagined AGI to be. POCs are great deal breakers. It must work 100% as >> designed, or else it's regarded as a total failure. There's no grey room >> for excuses there, no such a thing as a marginal POC. Then you should call >> it a pilot study, and not a proof of concept prototype. As long as we're >> all empirically clear on that. >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Colin Hales <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, 26 December 2019 00:20 >> *To:* AGI <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [agi] Re: rotation back in the olden days >> >> I have won a grant to build proof--of-principle hardware at macroscopic >> scales. 12 months. Basic 'computational unit', intrinsically adaptive. 1 >> million times scaled up so neuroscientists can hold it in their hands and >> acclimatise themselves to how it maps to membrane activity and then AGI. >> >> It's pointless talking to computer science/engineering about >> non-computer approaches to AGI, so I've given up. >> >> Keep thinking along the same lines and you'll be on the vector towards >> real AGI. No models. No software. Empirical science, not theoretical >> science. The one thing nobody sees and that has never been tried since 1952. >> >> Enjoy! >> >> Colin >> >> >> On Wed., 25 Dec. 2019, 4:15 am , <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thats ok Keghn (about being "something completely different"), this >> forum appears a little corpsed at the moment. :) >> On cogs being bits -> if you use more than one encoder wheel, cogged >> together, you can have an exponential amount of positions. >> >> *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/T6396a91307d96c85-M27818dd0912e846197716cd6> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T6396a91307d96c85-Ma00dca4e4d22284f11ea35c8 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
