Steve, D00d, really? I've installed HMI and PLC controllers on heat treating furnaces. The thing is, we run furnace surveys anyway to check the set points on those furnaces and have alarms set up at very specific points using precisely calibrated thermocouples (see SAE AMS2750C and D for example).
You are telling me everything going wonky with my body's temp set points can get fixed by strapping a peltier cooler to my torso or doing jumping jacks for 15 minutes, twelve times a day? Like, WOW, mahn. First off, I want to see you data for 24 hours with five calibrated thermocouples strapped to your femoral artery, throat, the top of your head, your foot and probably your anus. Then I want to see how much delta there is. Then I want to see that data for three months and then maybe.. maybe I'm going to study the ancient Tibetan art of Tumo out on some mountainside or buy into your whole deal? Would also point out, I tend to get a little chilly when my blood sugar is getting a little depleted. Color me not convinced. But hey, I get your arguments on hardware so far. Or I think I do. -GJS On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]> wrote: > Jim, > > Your posting encapsulates Babbage's quandary. Babbage could see that > computers could do (almost) anything, but was unable to explain that in > terms that could be widely accepted, especially when all he had to show was > a design for a clunky mechanical computer that he was never able to build. > > Adaptive control is now in the same quandary - where it seems "obvious" to > some but impossible to others that intelligence and consciousness could > arise from an "unprogrammed" complex adaptive control system. > > I had long thought that we must be made of some sort of "universal > components" that self-organize to become us, but NNs failed to deliver on > that promise. Colin has some new thoughts here that at absolute minimum > provide new directions for NN research. > > Religions have long viewed consciousness as something apart from our > physical reality, and even now many AGIers (you?) view consciousness as > something apart from the rest of our wetware, most of which is concerned > with mundane things like controlling our digestion, breathing, blood > pressure, temperature, etc. > > Then, when it comes to controlling lipids and glucose, these must be > controlled by adjusting what we decide to EAT. Oh, we want some MEAT for > the nutrients (like vitamin B12) that are available in meat, so we must > KILL something. And, there doesn't seem to be anything around that doesn't > avoid being killed, so we must out-think our meals to be able to eat them. > > But, what if the available meat is too big and/or dangerous to kill, like > buffalo? Then, we must work TOGETHER to eat, which involves weapons, > planning, communication, etc. > > In short, I/we see intelligence and consciousness and simply the next > higher level of adaptive process control. If we can do any part of it > correctly, then there is a good chance that with more components, it will > *spontaneously* do everything!!! > > Whatever it is that we have that insects do NOT have seems to be a > quantitative issue, so there doesn't seem to be a "threshold" of > consciousness, but rather it permeates the entire structure, regardless of > size. > > However, I/we can NOT explain this operation in enough detail to convince > skeptics, and even if we could produce such an explanation, I suspect it > would probably be beyond any human's ability to understand. > > *Flashback:* When I figured out how body temperature was controlled and > how to correct it when it was low, I called the doctor who had first > pioneered permanent temperature correction to discuss my theories and > possibly produce a joint publication. From my writings (which have since > brought many people up to speed) he was UNABLE to understand my theories. > It wasn't because of any shortfall in my explanations, but rather because > he was unable to grok the subtleties of adaptive control systems. From my > own observations, anyone who hasn't learned about PID control systems by > their mid-20s probably can NEVER understand more complex things, like > adaptive control systems, probably because that place in their brains has > already been committed to other tasks. > > So, in the absence of any other apparent path forward in an AGI direction, > Colin and I are looking into adaptive control from our respective POVs. > > Steve > ==================== > > > On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I thought the ideas are interesting and Colin's description was more >> readable than usual but the arguments supporting the method weren't >> very powerful. I am curious about how Colin is implementing the >> method. Could you give me a little more about that? Are you designing >> some kind of electrical circuit? >> >> What I was trying to say in this thread is that you have to supply a >> little more insight about why you think that the methods that you are >> designing and will be implementing would rise above being 'narrow ai'. >> For instance, Colin's honest report on how far he has actually gotten >> so far sounds like it is on par with simple narrow AI. As I reread >> your messages I keep finding a little more in it. But back to my >> point. Since I can rough out the algorithms that I would use as if >> they were abstractions, or as if they could exist within an abstract >> world, it would seem that I should be able to conduct simple tests to >> show that they could diversify in some way that is: 1. at least better >> than narrow ai, and 2. useful in some way. So perhaps I should add >> that. I would say, for example, that artificial neural networks would >> pass this kind of test. However, the criticism then is, ironically >> given our use of the narrow ai term, that they lack efficient means to >> focus and they cannot be efficiently used as componential objects. >> >> So, can you guys define some abstract or simple tests that could show >> that your ideas would become able to adapt to the more complicated >> demands of actual tests? The value of the simple test is that once you >> can get your algorithms to pass the first test you might come up with >> ways to design a slightly more aggressive test. So if I could test my >> ideas to,say, try to learn to recognize some simple classifications >> then I might try to see if I can get it to try to get it to learn to >> utilize systems of classifications effectively and efficiently >> (without redesigning the program only for that specific kind of test.) >> So then I would have to design some other kind of test to make sure >> that it is somewhat general. >> Jim Bromer >> >> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Steve Richfield < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Jim, >> >>> >> >>> Again, I think I see the POV to solve this. All animals, from single >> cells to us, are fundamentally adaptive process control systems. We use our >> intelligence to live better and more reliably, procreate, etc., much as >> single-celled animals, only with MUCH richer functionality. Everything fits >> this hierarchy of function leading to intelligence. >> >>> >> >>> Then, people like those on this forum start by ignoring this and >> trying to create intelligence from whole cloth. This may be possible, but >> there is NO existence proof for this, no data to guide the effort, etc. In >> short, there is NO reason to expect a whole-cloth approach to work anytime >> during the next century (or two). >> >>> >> >>> However, some of the mathematics of adaptive process control is >> known, and I suspect the rest wouldn't be all that tough - if only SOMEONE >> were working on it. >> > >> > >> > Erm.... guys. This would be me. >> > >> > I am working on it. For well over a decade now. Cognition and >> intelligence is implemented as an adaptive control system replicating, >> inorganically, the natural original called the human (mammal) nervous >> system. I simply replicate it inorganically. Tough job but I am getting >> there. There's no programming. No software. Just radically adaptively >> nested looping processes. In control strategy terms it is a non-stationary >> system (architecture itself is adaptive). Control loops come into existence >> and bifurcate and vanish adaptively. The architecture commences at the >> level of single ion channels and nest at multiple levels that then appear >> in tissue as neurons doing what they do, but need not appear like this in >> the inorganic version. You don't actually need cells at all. These then >> nest at increasing spatiotemporal scales forming coalitions, layers, >> columns and finally whole tissue. All inorganically. All the same at all >> scales from an adaptive control perspective. Power-law scalable. Physically >> and logically. >> > >> > In my case, for the conscious version the hardware includes the >> field-superposing, active additional feedback in the wave mechanics of the >> EM field system produced by brain cells at specific points. The fields form >> an addition/secondary loop modulation that operates orthogonally, >> outside/through the space occupied by the chip substrate. >> > >> > What I am starting with is the 'zombie' or symbolically ungrounded >> version. It doesn't produce the active field system (missing a whole >> control system feedback mechanism) and uses supervised learning >> (externalised by a conscious human trainer) to compensate for the loss of >> the natural role consciousness has as an endogenous supervisor. It will, in >> the zombie form, underperform in precisely the way all computer AGI >> underperforms. This is what is missing when you use computers to do it all. >> You end up with a recipe (software) for pulling Pinocchio's strings. >> Whereas my system bypasses the puppetry altogether. It makes the little >> boy, not the puppet. >> > >> > However you view it, there's nothing else there in a brain except >> nested loops that have power-law responses in two orthogonal axes: sensory >> and cognitive. Adding the field system to the sensory axis (e.g. visual >> experience) or part of the cognitive axis (e.g. emotional experience) >> provide the active role for consciousness implemented through the causal >> impact of the Lorentz force within the hardware. I suppose it'd be an >> 'adaptive control loop' philosophy for cognition and 'EM field theory of >> consciousness' combined. No computing needed whatever. Just like the brain. >> Most of the last ten years has been spent figuring out the EM field bits! >> That I am now omitting, knowing what I lose when I do that (i.e. >> consciousness). >> > >> > Teeny weeny Zombie version 0.0 this year I hope. No EM field >> generation. I call it the 'circular causality controller'. I aim to add the >> EM fields later. That part requires $millions. It's chip-foundry stuff. >> > >> > So chalk me in under this 'adaptive control loop' category for AGI >> implementation please. I know this forum is a 'using computers to do AGI' >> forum so I'll just continue to zip it. I haven't mentioned it much over the >> years because it seems that most of you aren't interested in my approach. >> For reference and for the record.... I am the 'AGI as adaptive control' guy. >> > >> > cheers >> > colin >> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I suspect that when the answers are known, it will be a bit like >> spread spectrum communications, where there is a payoff for complexity, but >> where ultimately there is a substitute for designed-in complexity, e.g. >> like the pseudo-random operation of spread spectrum systems. Genetics seems >> to prefer designed-in complexity (like our brains) but there is NO need for >> computers to have such limitations. >> >>> >> >>> Whatever path you take, you must "see a path" to have ANY chance of >> succeeding. You must have a POV that helps you to "cut the crap" in pursuit >> of your goal. Others here are working on whole-cloth approaches, yet >> bristle when challenged for lacking a guiding POV. I see some hope in >> adaptive control math. Perhaps you see something else, but it MUST have an >> associated guiding POV for you to have any hope of succeeding - more than a >> simple list of what it does NOT have. >> >>> >> >>> Steve >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> AGI >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: 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/303/27055757-c218d4f9> | > 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
