Dear AGI folk,
I am testing my registration on the system,, saying an inaugural 'hi'
and seeking guidance in respect of potential submissions for a
presentation spot at the next AGI conference.
It is time for me to become more visible in AGI after 5 years of
research and reprogramming my brain into the academic side of things....
My plans as a post-doc are to develop a novel chip technology. It will
form the basis for what I have called 'A-Fauna'. I call it A-Fauna
because it will act like biological organisms and take their place
alongside natural fauna in a chosen ecological niche. Like tending a
field as a benign 'artificial weed-killer'...they know and prefer their
weeds...you get the idea. They are AGI robots that learn (are coached)
to operate in a specific role and then are 'intellectually nobbled'
(equivalent to biology), so their ability to handle novelty is
specifically and especially curtailed. They will also be a whole bunch
cheaper in that form...They are then deployed into that specific role
and will be happy little campers. These creatures are different to
typical mainstream AI fare because they cannot be taught how to learn.
They are like us: they learn how to learn. As a result they can handle
novelty better...a long story...Initially the A-Fauna is very small but
potentially it could get to human level. The first part of the
development is the initial proof of specific physics, which requires a
key experiment. I can't wait to do this! The success of the experiment
then leads to development and miniaturisation and eventual application
into a prototype 'critter', which will then have to be proven to have
P-consciousness (using the test in 3 below)....anyway...that's the rough
'me' of it.
I am in NICTA www.nicta.com.au
Victoria Research Lab in the Life-Sciences theme.
Department of Electrical/Electronic Eng, University of Melbourne
So....the AGI-09 basic topics to choose from are:
1) Empirical refutation of computationalism
2) Another thought experiment refutation of computationalism. "The
Totally Blind Zombie Homunculus Room"
3) An objective test for Phenomenal consciousness.
4) A novel backpropagation mechanism in an excitable cell
membrane/syncytium context.
1) and 2) are interesting because the implication is that if anyone
doing AGI lifts their finger over a keyboard thinking they can be
directly involved in programming anything to do with the eventual
knowledge of the creature...they have already failed. I don't know
whether the community has internalised this yet. BTW that makes 4 ways
that computationalism has been shot. How dead does it have to get? :-) I
am less interested in these than the others.
3) Is a special test which can be used to empirically test for
P-consciousness in an embedded, embodied artificial agent. I need this
test framework for my future AGI developments...one day I need to be
able to point at at my AGI robot and claim it is having experiences of a
certain type and to be believed. AGI needs a test like this to get
scientific credibility. "So you claim it's conscious?....prove it!".
This is problematic but I am reasonably sure I have worked out a way....
So it needs some attention (a paper is coming out sometime soon I hope.
They told me it was accepted, anyway...). The test is
double-blind/clinical style with 'wild-type' control and 'test
subject'...BTW the computationalist contender (1/2 above) is quite
validly tested but would operate as a sham/placebo control... because it
is known they will always fail. Although anyone serious enough can offer
it as a full contender. Funnily enough it also proves humans are
conscious! In case you were wondering...humans are the wild-type control.
4) Is my main PhD topic. I submit this time next year. (I'd prefer to do
this because I can get funded to go to the conference!). It reveals a
neural adaptation mechanism that is completely missing from present
neural models. It's based on molecular electrodynamics of the neural
membrane. The effect then operates in the syncytium as a regulatory
(synchrony) bias operating in quadrature with (and roughly independent
of) the normal synaptic adaptation.
I prefer 4) because of the funding but also because I'd much rather
reveal it to the AGI community - because that is my future...but I will
defer to preferences of the group....I can always cover 1,2,3 informally
when I am there if there's any interest....so...which of these (any) is
of interest?...I'm not sure of the kinds of things you folk want to hear
about. All comments are appreciated.
regards to all,
Colin Hales
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
