Alan, Alright. I thougth I answered 1 and 2 before, but here comes again. Take a retina. Light from whatever is outside illuminates the cones. Each cone generates an electric impulse. That's the causal set. That's it: (light on cone ==> electrical impulse) times 100 million cones is the causal set. And that's all the information you get. Look at it anyway you want, that's all the information you can get from the retina. Of course, each cone has a position in the body, and the electric impulse came at a certain instant of time.
With hearing it is the same. Regarding "binaural", I do not disagree, I am only saying let's start with something simpler, monaural. If we can do it for a monaural causal set, we can also do it for a binaural one, but will have to buy an even bigger computer. "Reallistic" Well, sunlight and black dots is reallistic, you can look at black dots. For a more reallistic case, we will have to engineer the cones! (Yes, it's me saying engineer). Surprisingly, however, we will NOT have to tell the causal set anything about the cones, so the engineering is external to EI, or to the neurons. All that is needed is that "something" has caused the electric impulse. And then, we let EI or the brain to figure out what it was. Burden of proof? That's unreallistic. Who do you think I am, Qicken Loans? EI touches a variety of disciplines. AGI is just one of them. I have communication with people from several other disciplines. Should I become an expert in each one of them? My contribution to science is to have proved that EI exists and to have characterized it, and that's why I keep insisting about the section on Small Systems in my Complexity paper. Now, experts from the disciplines must take over. My part: continue developing the theory (it is not finished, not even close) and try to attract help from experts by popularizing my finding. Regarding 2, I thought I did that too. I showed useful results for the GUAPs in Computer Science, recognition of edges in vision, and Physics. That's only an enticement. You may fall for it, or not. But keep in mind, many chinese, and russians, and japanese may have read my paper, and nobody knows what they are doing. I told NASA I want this developed in the US, but I don't have any control. Sorry I am pissing you off so much about Neuroscience. I declare emphatically my knowledge on that to be very limited. But I can draw conclusions that may, repeat, may be useful to Neuroscience, and that's all I am trying to do. I have also insisted that the brain is the only known intelligent system, and that we have a lot to learn from it. But I've also said, the "lot" does NOT include the implementation of the brain. All we need is to understand the principles, and then we can start using the principles in new and creative ways, such as an artificial system, without ever having to simulate the brain in all its complexity. Sorry if you don't like this, but this is a cornerstone for me. For the sake of principles, I don't need to know very much about the 200 types of neurons. That doesn't mean I disdain that vast knowledge. Quite on the contrary. All I am saying is that, for now, it is not needed. Once the principle is set, then, not now, then it will be the right time to start examining neurological knowledge. By you, not me. I'll help all I can. People work in teams in Science, you know. In summary: your wish about stop professing to know neurology is granted. Your wish about complete agents is denied. So, back to principles, and we need simple examples. I already thought of a few with the retina. Interested? ALAN > That's why I'm still talking to you. SERGIO > This is entirely optional. Sergio ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Alan Grimes [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:19 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Prediction Did Not Work (except in narrow ai.) Mike Tintner wrote: > Sergio:But there is one thing that is infinite: Mike's infinite variety. > I KNOW, REPEAT, I KNOW! DON'T TELL ME THIS AGAIN! I know that there is > an infinite variety > Sergio, > You didn't get it. There are NO SETS in real world problems. Not > infinite sets.None. Try naming one where there is a set - from > scientific to tech. problems to everyday practical problems: What > shall have I lunch for today? What shall I watch on TV or the net tonight?Or: > What are we going to do re the Euro crisis? How can we cure cancer? > Set, please. Mike: Sergio is not completely off-base here. Set theory is extremely powerful, so powerful that much if not all of the rest of mathematics can be expressed in terms of set theory. I now need Sergio to do two things: 1. Propose a strategy to convert a realistic sensory perception, such as a pixel matrix or a tono-spatial map of binaural hearing into the kind of set he proposes. 2. Show that his algorithm can produce useful results when fed input from 1. (ie, the recognition of a shape or the identification of a sound, etc...) There seems to be a very good chance that he will be able to pull this off. But then the burden of pruf is on him... That said, I wish to hell he'd stop professing to know stuff about neurology, such as that his algorithm has nearly perfect explanatory power over all 200 types of neurons... There are a lot of critically important neural sub-systems in the brain. If you study the overall architecture of the system, you will see that there are roughly four different layers of organization, each one *MODULATES* a simpler behavior implemented by the next lower level. So no, the cortex does not produce behaviors, it merely modulates and organizes behaviors produced by lower levels, such as the thalamus, hypothalamus, and spinal nuclei. So in order to have an AGI system capable of doing anything useful, you MUST build it as a complete cybernetic agent. No sub-set of an AGI mind will be able to solve anything beyond toy problems. You MUST HAVE A COMPLETE AGENT WITH AUTONOMOUS LEARNING!!! There's no partial solution. Either it is sufficiently autonomous to learn (and hence act) on its own or you will be spending the rest of your life spoon-feeding it information. -- E T F N H E D E D Powers are not rights. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; d2 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
