Hi, You have to understand memory in neurons as a totally autonomous, entirely dynamic storage and recall mechanism with a vast repertoire of contents established (write) and recalled (read) by the same neurons that have two orthogonally acting , mutually adaptive signalling systems that give small cohorts of neurons a vast amount of storage capacity that geometrically explodes when cohorts interact with cohorts .... in a nested hierarchy (EM fields inside EM fields inside .....) ...
1) variable interconnectivity of neurons doing their standard signalling (spiking) (synapses, axons) 2) the EM field system impressed on space by those neurons by the same signalling system. In 'being' the EM field system, the brain has exposure to the surrounding world (groundng in that world). That is, the two signalling mechanisms have a linkage to a ground truth to augment different dynamics into the same set of neurons. This 2) second signalling mechanism involves a spectacular geometric increase in the memory storage capacity of the same set of neurons. The EM part of the causality (via the Lorentz force) causes the (spiking aspect) signalling to vary in phase and frequency that constitutes recognition (read) and stabilizes a particular memory (write) simultaneously. Associative memory is the result. The lookup key is in the EM field itself. This works perfectly with imagined (internally originated) experiential content. Exposure to a consistent experiential context (repetition) reinforces the memory. This system of signalling does it all in the brain. It is writing this email. If you throw out the specific 2) EM physics of the signalling then the EM role is gone. Grounding in the external world is gone.The memories are unstable. Throw it out and the system is nonfunctional. In those parts of the EM field system that are unconscious, the EM field spatiotemporal behaviour does no superpose in the temporally integrated way that generates conscious content, and the function of the neurons is left to adapt merely by signal type 1). In relation to your question "why can't you do it with computers?" *The answer is you can!* But what you do is permanently enrol external agency (or an explicit mechanism that does not exist in the natural system) in establishment of novel memories and maintaining existing memories. A lack of groundedness and fragility ensues ....Exactly what we find in the well documented failure modes of the AI world using computers. The failures are inelegant in their initial failure and possibly irrecoverable because it is the physics connected to the delivery of experience that holds the signalling in an accurate, stable and repeatable dynamic that builds in the conditions of the external world and integrates a response to variability in the external world. You also end up with the loss of an extremely powerful memory content system .... this loss demands a massive computational resources to redress even the smallest glitches in the signal processing. There is a reason why the performance of a 20W meat processor outdoes both digital and analogue (neuromorphic) computers. It's the EM basis of the brain's information handling system. The very thing both these technologies dump from the getgo in a 'substrate independence' cult based on a falsehood. The brain is not Turing computable because there is access to information content that is intrinsic to the physics. Simulating a model of the physics loses that information content because it is precisely and only about what the system does not know. The signal processing of the brain is carried out by 1 thing: EM fields of a specific (brain organization) kind (1 & 2 above). There is only 1 substrate that nature uses: EM fields. Even a steam computer is made of EM fields. It is the very particular organization of EM in brains that is the 'secret sauce' that is right in front of everyone. If you use the EM field physics in the form of a computer and connection to the external world, and the causality that responds to it, is gone. It has to be replaced by the designer explicitly. Which is fine, if you can tolerate that. But it's not AGI in the sense of being an artificial version of natural general intelligence. The generality (G) is exhibited by the smallest of creatures. It is how biology (with a nervous system) encounters novelty in a more survivable way. This is a subtle failure: it is a loss of autonomy. *Autonomous* novelty handling. That's what goes missing. The G in AGI is lost. That's the thing that everyone's after. It literally defines the way AI has been failing all along. As I have said here a bunch of times.... If this was the Wright Bros, then if the physics of lift was thrown out (a flight simulator) then flight is gone. In exactly the same way, if the EM physics of neuron signalling is thrown out you 100% lose the autonomous handling of novelty. Use computers? Fine. Just know what it is that is that you're enrolling in your future: .... the permanent ongoing exogenous retrofitting of all novelty (that which the system has never encountered). Note that an exogenously applied model of novelty handling is not autonomous novelty handling. The 'knowing you don't know something' moment is the moment that the machine gets to viable recovery. The system that incorporates consciousness can do this because some aspects of the character of the novelty itself is intrinsically available to it. I am now officially off Jim's hook. :-) cheers colin On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 11:34 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday, February 19, 2022, at 6:22 PM, Colin Hales wrote: > > In making AGI one must replicate the EM field system as part of the > replication of the signal processing. AGI done this way has no models, no > software and does not use computers. > > > @Colin Hales, if we consider my below understanding and your proposal, can > you help me understand better? > > AGI requires a brain to store memories - from past experiences. Upon > seeing future problems, it recognizes future problems by technically > ""matching"" them to past memories, which allows it to kind-of know what to > predict next. If it had no memories to match, no inherited reflexes to use, > and so on, it would have no clue how to react to a future stimulus. It > wouldn't react to it any any sort of way that would "benefit it". It'd be > randomness, causing death. So the whole human body is all about "storing" > information that helped us survive, and "reading" that information upon > using it for a recognizable input. The brain also "thinks" even when all is > quit around itself, this is the brain trying to improve on its pattern > matching for the future. > > Some examples of memories being ""matched"" are these below, and it only > knows the memory "walk fast": > wwaallkk > WALK > W a L K > run > to go forth > klaw > waiulk > "sound" of walking > etc > and, touching the back of your tongue initiates a stored gag reflex > > Where does EM fit into this matching? And why can't we do memory matching > in computers? It looks like it works fine...See Google's Pallete. > *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/T85ce710057b5a5ac-M6d9544b7d8956a199bae5989> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T85ce710057b5a5ac-Mb1e64cd1caa3f1a672588c70 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
