On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 01:37 +0100, Mike Tintner wrote: > Michael :The brains "slow and unreliable" methods I think are the price paid > for > generality and innately unreliable hardware > > Yes to one - nice to see an AGI-er finally starting to join up the dots, > instead of simply dismissing the brain's massive difficulties in maintaining > a train of thought. > > No to two - innately unreliable hardware is the price of innately > *adaptable* hardware - that can radically grow and rewire (wh. is the other > advantage the brain has over computers). Any thoughts about that and what > in more detail are the advantages of an organic computer? Program software can "rewire" themselves in some senses, one creates "virtual" hardware inside the program as though it was real hardware. But it's extremely rare to find ones that are purely general, so much so I doubt purely general ones even exist. Are NN's purely general? Are GA's purely general? I thought perhaps code that writes code could potentially reach such a lofty goal (as it can turn into a GA or NN or , well, anything). Then I thought the code writing the code restricts what the "written" code can be.
So, then I made some simple experiments of the code modifying itself. The end result was surprisingly ( at least I suspect it was) similar to DNA. I still had a large section of code, whose purpose was to read part itself, and modify it, and this "large" piece of code had no bearing in what the modified code actually did. DNA has 2 sections, a coding section, which actually most of the hard work, and poorly named junk DNA (or non-coding DNA), which most biologist thought did nothing, until they discovered it doing stuff all over the place but in a somewhat discrete, subtle fashion. So, is my experiment 6 http://codegenerationdesign.webs.com/index.htm the first ever program to roughly mimic the programming of DNA ? I find this really hard to prove, but I think it remains a possibility. Apparently, Biologists don't think much my degree in biology from the University of Wikipedia, nature docs, and other random stuff you read from the internet. > > In addition, the unreliable hardware is also a price of "global" > ardware - that has the basic capacity to connect more or less any bit of > information in any part of the brain with any bit of information in any > other part of the brain - as distinct from the "local" hardware of computers > wh. have "to go through limited local channels to limited local stores of > information to make v. limited local kinds of connections." Well, that's my > tech-ignorant take on it - but perhaps you can expand on the idea. I would > imagine v. broadly the brain is "globally connected" vs the computer wh. is > "locally connected." Yep, the ability to grab memory from anywhere is called RAM - Random Access Memory. A single neurons can only access data from it's 25,000 connections, which sounds like a lot, but isn't because computers can access a theoretical infinite set of data. Being that the program in a brain can only go forward, how does it tell other neurons that it wants data about X that is behind it ? One theory, is that certain neurons detect that they need more data, and create a greater positive charge to attract more of negatively charged data. So in a sense they "sux" more data into themselves, effectively sending a different, non-dangerous backward running signal. (Author note: that I can't prove this at all, and is just a possibility) > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
