[Col] I've just had a whole bunch of fun at the Melbourne Singularity Summit. What a 'hoot'! At the conference I made a somewhat thwarted attempt to introduce physical replication as a 'roadmap item' for AGI. I tried to show that AGI may be reached by constructing the actual necessary physics of brain material using different ingredients (inorganic cells and electrons instead of ions as charge carriers). This proposal has critical superiority because it can be argued to retain all the basic physics of brain material and therefore inherit all the natural properties in the manner of brain material. In such an approach, the chips would have an EEG and MEG signature like brains. The chips can be argued to be making use of quantum field effects just like brains do.
[Brent] Your proposal seems to be saying 'yes' to the doctor who promises to replicate the EM fields of your brain. The 'doctor' (me) is delivering BOTH the EM fields and the system of action potentials (AP) that produce them. What they are applied to is irrelevant. In application they will be superior to any existing approach. They apply to (a) implants to repair nervous tissue, (b) tools to study brain dynamics/pathology like epilepsy and (c) robot brains that actually work (for a change!). But if EM fields are what do the thinking then one's thinking would be muddled when you stand near power lines. [Col] Nope. They won't/don't. It may (not shown conclusively yet) cause cellular malfunction in humans (like glioma). In inorganic replication, they will not be subject to biological malfunction because all the biological overheads are gone. They will be at least as EM-field-interference-resistant as the human brain. Probably much more so. However all such replication can get muddled when you blow the living s**t out of it with a TMS wand or an TES system! I am going to be subjected to this in mid-sept! Disruptive externally applied fields have to include certain dynamics, otherwise they won't have any functional impact. EMP and tasers will also muddle it up. [Brent] Of course at the atomic level the EM fields of outer electron shells define the chemistry - but then it's simpler to describe the brain functions in terms of the chemistry. [Col] Shell operations define chemistry...right but not relevant....and simpler? No it isn't! That's several orders of magnitude too fine scale and all the biological baggage is completely unnecessary. I did my PhD thesis on this. Action potentials (AP) create a large EM field system based on the activity of ions. The AP/EM mutually resonating and adaptive dynamics are the real engine, not specific chemistry. You can do this organically (us) or inorganically (AGI). Use electrons instead of ions, use inorganic capacitance instead of cell processes. Introduce the same nonlinearities and 'voila', brain tissue replication. As I clearly said in my original post. - physical replication is not description, nor simulation, nor emulation, nor synthetic (molecular) biology, nor is it a model of it, nor is it mimicking anything. It literally, physically REPLICATES the original physics with inorganic substitute materials. In doing so, it can be correctly claimed to be more inclusive of all the natural physics (of charge location and motion and all its field production and temporal dynamics) than anything like a computer program or IBM's so-called 'brain chips', which have nothing at all to do with the original brain except description/modelling. It will underperform, just like all such positions have underperformed for 60 years: expose it to novelty and fooomp.... error. Colin Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
