============================= The information is electrically integrated so if they do not spike .....In addition, inside the evolving brain you are not so limited as in vivo, you may be able to include all kinds of sensors .One can easily sort spikes from different neurons see the papers www.*researchgate*.net/profile/* Dorian*_*Aur*/ you can directly download them Dorian ======================================
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected] > wrote: > Dorian, > > You are doing some VERY interesting work. Please feel free to email me any > articles that you would like me to read, review, etc. > > We appear to be in a sort of violent agreement here, with some problems > with the details. > > We seem to agree that there is LOTS more going on in neurons than can be > observed at the outputs of neurons. I stated that it was beyond the current > state of the art, which you disputed by showing your work that pushes > further ahead. VERY good, as this seems to clearly establish the greater > internal complexity than most people understand. > > However, your methods appear to have SERIOUS limitations when it comes to > watching several neurons interacting, because your extracellular method of > observing spike trajectories would be unable to sort out the simultaneous > operation of several nearby active neurons, and besides, most neurons are > NON-spiking. > > It is REALLY good to find someone who is not only pushing the frontiers of > observation, but who also stops to talk with us mere mortals. > > Continuing... > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Dorian Aur <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> ================================== >> One can read this information processed in the evolving brain directly >> from electrical patterns that occur within neurons with a very simple >> technique http://dx.doi.org./10.1016/j.jneumeth.2005.05.006, >> > > From what I can get from the abstract and drawings, you are making > presumptions about the ion channels, and them simulating action potentials > to see if the simulations are anything like the real thing. > > The problem I have here is that much of the operation of neurons is > believed to come from VARYING the ion channels to affect neuronal > characteristics. The last I looked, much of the mechanism for controlling > that variation was still unknown. > > Since all this information is electrically integrated in the brain see >> also >> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165027012001021?v=s5 >> this method should be more than enough >> > > I am thinking about the prospects of combining your methods with a > scanning UV fluorescence microscope, to actually WATCH the spikes in slow > motion real time, along with the associated electrical activity. > > Indeed, we can complicate the problem, study synapses, the path of >> propagation......... Why would you like to do that when we have a different >> goal? >> > > Which is what? A clear statement of goal would help a LOT. Whatever > technology ends up in an AGI must come from SOMEWHERE. A half century of > twiddling with AI and NNs hasn't worked. A century of observation of living > systems hasn't worked. Do we now move to Ouija boards and tea leaves? > > I suspect our perspectives are closer than our postings might suggest, > that we must dig deeper and observe more subtle details to disclose the > secret sauce of neuron operation, and then transplant that knowledge into > AGI efforts. > > The only other apparent path is to close on the underlying mathematical > theory. Aside from Tintner believing that this is fundamentally impossible, > there are some very real practical issues, the most important of which is > that no one seems to want to do this, or is even able to contribute to > this. I have done some important work in this area, but I cannot conquer > this alone. There needs to be a group of mathematically inclined people to > work together to get this done. I can participate in this, but I can NOT do > the whole job. > > Steve > ======================== > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Steve Richfield < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dorian, >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Dorian Aur <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> We need to use their power of computation directly, a hybrid model >>>> (evolving brain - digital computer) will solve many issues regarding in >>>> vivo monitoring >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure what you are saying here. All "monitoring" already goes >>> directly into a digital computer, if for no other reason than to clean up >>> the signal and compute things like dV/dt and peak values that may have been >>> obscured by limited bandwidth and sampling rate. >>> >>> However, there is more that remains invisible than there is that can be >>> seen. The ONLY thing that can now be seen is the instantaneous voltage, and >>> to my knowledge there are NO proposals to monitor anything else. >>> >>> This is what detoured neural networks - the belief that the ONLY thing >>> being transmitted is a single value, the "output". Now, most AGI projects >>> seek to perpetuate this detour, believing that everything can be contained >>> in a "probability". >>> >>> Everyone seems to believe in SOME sort of back propagation, and the >>> inability to make any sort of "simple" back propagation learn anything but >>> orders of magnitude slower than we learn suggests that there is something >>> more complex happening, like maybe more than one thing being propagated >>> back. >>> >>> There may be other signals going forward, like some indication of >>> plasticity to help operate the complex triage of determining WHICH neuron >>> should change when an apparently impossible set of signals arrives >>> somewhere. >>> >>> My own suspicions are that some of this may work by impedance, where >>> some outputs are "stiffer" than others. A plastic neuron might have a >>> higher output impedance, to be more easily affected by downstream loading. >>> However, it still seems that whatever happens at a synapse must travel >>> backwards to the inputs to be able to make an entire system self-organize. >>> >>> Until we can see and affect more, I don't see any prospect for useful >>> hybrid computation. This present inability to interact (other than voltage) >>> with a living neuron that is carrying multiple signals in various >>> directions seems to me to be an even bigger technical barrier than >>> scanning out entire connetomes, uploading and downloading, etc. >>> >>> The AGI folks here wave all this off, but until SOMEONE here builds >>> SOMETHING that is capable of the same sorts of instantaneous self-adapting >>> learning that we and every other living thing can do, AGI has no possible >>> future. I can't see any way around this barrier, and in the years that I >>> have been on this forum, apparently no one else has seen any way around >>> this barrier. >>> >>> For those who haven't immersed themselves in this sort of code, the >>> challenge is that learning must take place with unreliable inputs that are >>> themselves learning and adapting. What they "learn" is often superstitious >>> learning based on some "feature" (bug) in a signal that learning later >>> "corrects", only to help some downstream processes while hurting others. >>> Multiply this problem by ALL of the computations being performed doing >>> this, and nothing works UNLESS you introduce some sort of low-pass >>> "dampening" to keep single miss-learned computations from undoing the >>> entire process, which destroys the instantaneous learning that is sought - >>> or alternatively, downstream processes fall into a learning hole where they >>> fail to learn anything that is useful. It is hard to fully appreciate this >>> phenomenon until you have been there. At first this appears to be a simple >>> algorithmic malfunction, until you realize that the problem presently lacks >>> solution. >>> >>> From thousands of miles away and reading postings here, people appear to >>> be in various phases of "hacking" the above mentioned challenge. I suspect >>> that Ben is starting to realize that there are more fundamental issues. It >>> seems pretty obvious to me that this is from a shortfall in theory, and NOT >>> the result of any shortfall in "hacking". >>> >>> I have attempted to dissect this issue and suggest possible approaches >>> on past postings, but got no reasoned responses. It appears that to be >>> active in AGI that it is absolutely necessary to live in a sort of La-La >>> land of denial of this VERY basic issue. >>> >>> It seems to me that everyone here should *STOP* and deal with this >>> "little detail", because AGI has nowhere to go without it. >>> >>> Steve >>> ===================== >>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Steve Richfield < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Back around 1970 I heard about a researcher who had a couple hundred >>>>> pipette electrodes, all in parallel and affixed to a square plate, that >>>>> was >>>>> pushed into a brain to read a couple hundred extracellular points in the >>>>> brain. Unfortunately, I don't remember enough about the reference to >>>>> exhibit it here. I remember hearing about this from William Calvin. >>>>> >>>>> Note that the equipment didn't then exist to record and analyze this >>>>> many parallel real-time inputs, so researchers had to switch their limited >>>>> monitoring equipment between electrodes. >>>>> >>>>> This would establish the rate of progress at approximately zero, and >>>>> the time to monitor the entire brain as infinite. >>>>> >>>>> Note that none of the past or present approaches to monitoring monitor >>>>> anything but voltage. There are various ions being bidirectionally moved >>>>> around to compute far more than can be seen by voltage alone, and these >>>>> remain beyond our "modern" technology to observe. >>>>> >>>>> Further, all present approaches to monitoring KILL some percentage of >>>>> the neurons that they seek to monitor. To scale, looking at an axon is a >>>>> lot like monitoring YOU by stabbing you with a telephone pole sized >>>>> electrode. Axons survive this better than people, but often all you >>>>> monitor >>>>> is the last seconds of the death of the neuron. >>>>> >>>>> No, for these and other reasons I reject the idea that we are making >>>>> ANY significant progress in this area. >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> ===================== >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:57 AM, tintner michael < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Out of a human brain's 100 billion neurons, researchers can >>>>>> presently monitor only about 200 at a time. This is sort of like trying >>>>>> to >>>>>> predict a presidential election by polling three people. " >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/world-wide-mind/201101/new-moores-law-neuroscience >>>>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >>>>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a >>>>> six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back >>>>> full employment. >>>>> >>>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/17795807-366cfa2a> | >>>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>> >>>> >>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a >>> six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back >>> full employment. >>> >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/17795807-366cfa2a> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six > hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full > employment. > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/17795807-366cfa2a> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
