+5 for using grok in a sentence. Carry on.
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Greg Staskowski <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/27079473-66e47b26> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Regards, Mark Seveland ------------------------------------------- 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
