Telmo, (i) Indeed, reverse-engineering the brain *on a digital computer is a much harder problem* (ii) Also, consciousness (like NLP) is a particularly "hard problem" only *if we like to replicate it solely on digital computers * (iii) Benjamin you are also right "a bunch of empirical data and applies a measure of statistical significance...with interpretations that are rather monstrous"...statistical significance does not provide a reeliable theoretical model, and the effect is little success to understand the diseased brain and provide reliable therapy. Billions and billions of dollars wasted in the last six decades, science became "a mob opinion" http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-04-30/do-we-all-have-alzhemers-completely-wrong-man-says-yes-
While the process of computation in the brain* is essentially a computer science problem* many computer scientists cannot contribute. And the Turing approach provides only a "reduced model" . We need to think differently. Why travel with a horse and carriage when we can build a spaceship? With a different path we can solve both problems. The solution is to bring both groups (a) and (b) thinkers & doers together, initially create heterogeneous teams to engineer the hybrid system using biological building blocks. The younger generation of scientists will understand the issue and probably will not repeat our mistakes if we can move fast with IGI . Both problems can be thoroughly solved through creativity, design and engineering. I strongly feel that this endeavor will be the fastest, less expensive and most effective path towards AGI and brain therapy. Dorian On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry if this is a duplicate posting. Something odd going on with my gmail. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > My analysis of the potential for the IGI is continuing. I have thought > about board structure, but that is secondary just now. The main point I > want to make here is how I would see such a thing operate. > > The future of AGI has two main threads to it: > > 1) Computer-based AGI (C-AGI) > 2) Non-computer-based AGI (NC-AGI) > > The IGI will be the first place ever that does NC-AGI. C-AGI has had 100% > of all investment and over half a century of activity. This imbalance has > to stop for the good of the entire AGI program. > > So the idea is that NC-AGI, which was always a possibility and is now more > possible than ever, joins C-AGI as a way towards real AGI, however it turns > out. I cannot and will not discuss the technical conceptuals contrasting > C-AGI and NC-AGI. It will be the job of the IGI to articulate that. This > thread is actually about the formation of an institute that might do it. > > I offer the following suggestion for the scope of the IGI: > > 1) The IGI does actual research and development of NC-AGI. The technical > mission is to make new kinds of neuromorphic chips that do model-free AGI, > put them as brains in robots and make a new ecology of NC-AGI-based robot > critters from insect to H+ level. > 2) The IGI establishes a double-blind independent AGI test facility that > _all_ embodied (robotic) AGI solutions, C-AGI and NC-AGI, can use to > formally test candidates. This has nothing whatever to do with Turing > tests. It will design the test regime and develop and test the tests. > 3) The IGI can set about isolating and instigating the practical legal, > social and regulatory mechanisms to do with having a machine ecology join > (or not) the natural ecology. > ========= > As such, it would be ideal if the IGI could be co-located with a C-AGI > institute. The two approaches, side-by side, could then work together in > 2) and 3). With a board that can see the merit in such an institute, and > the right researchers within it, this could be a serious contender for real > AGI. At the very least it would correct an imbalance to AGI that has been > in place for decades. It will champion and give a voice to NC-AGI. > > Currently there are, as far as I can tell, two and only two researchers in > the entire world who can envisage some kind of NC-AGI. > > Dr Dorian Aur (Ca, USA) > Dr Colin Hales.(Melbourne, Australia) > > If anyone knows anyone else that might see this potential then I would > like to be put in touch with them. > > That's all I wanted to say at this stage. If I were to be part of this > initiative, then these are my thoughts. I remain enthusiastic about this > potential. > > Regards, > > Colin Hales. > *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
