Am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2016 18:47:57 UTC+2 schrieb linas: > > Perhaps these papers will help clarify the nature of physical law, raised > in the emails below: > > Axel Kleidon > Non-equilibrium thermodynamics and maximum entropy production in the Earth > system > http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/bgc-theory/uploads/Pubs/2009-NaWi-AK.pdf > > -- or other writings by Kleidon e.g. this might be easier to read: > http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1910/181 > > > Regarding the central nervous system, it is critically important to > understand this: > http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00902/full > František Baluška and Michael Levin > On Having No Head: Cognition throughout Biological Systems > > If you put these two papers together, you can get a strong idea of where > things came from, and where they are going, at the level of physics, at > least. (Well, not just these papers, but streams of thought -- as there > is much written on the earth-biology-ecology in the non-equilibrium > thermodynamics viewpoint, its equally critical to understand that, e.g. > although slime molds can solve the two-armed bandit problem, there is a > signalling optimization when cells are long i.e. have axons, dendrites. It > is this last optimization that the artificial neural net people focus on, > but they do so only by ignoring the non-local nature of hormonal > signalling) > > Ty Linas, I did not think to get an answer from one of the opencog core contributors....
I will study this papers. It will take some time to read and understand. >"the non-local nature of hormonal signalling" Artificial neural nets sometimes has a bias-neuron which is connectet to all neurons and is able to influence the whole net. As I see it, hormons can be seen to do something like this bias-neurons. - Each hormon one bias-neuron? - But the bias-neurons not connected to all neurons but to a specific region of neurons as not all cells has receptors for hormons and every cell can regulate its receptors for its own needs. What do you think? I do not like so much the comparison between lively cells/neurons and artificial neurons because lively cells are very intelligent creatures themselfes. Remember: - A whole creature is built up by one cell, multiplying, itselfes, to be able to interact macroscopilcaly. - This cell was ever living (life was tranfered from one generation to the next) since the very first beginning of life, until it decided to become macroscopic active and spread all its information into the macroscopic realm and than dies out as an end of its branch. - This cell contains all the knowledge and even the ability to build up a human including the brain and even includig a huge set of behavioral knowledge - at least the instincts, but also the very sophisticated behavioral programms that are conained in the cerebellum. And more. Cells are what gives life to us. We are more just some kind of bio-robots (maybe some kind of second layer life). If somebody likes to call God, that what builded him up - the cell that builded him up, that he is an expresion of, is his God! (and so he really is like God! hehehe) All this for me leads to the conclusion that a living cell is more intelligent than a human brain. Regarding a cell nucleus as a highly developed quantum computer, perfecting/optimising itself fore more than 2 billion years, speed beyond atto seconds, maybe using every fine level of its atoms and anything we dont know yet, to represent information, the cell nucleus has much more calculating power than a human brain. What do you think? Andi > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Andi <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> >> >> Am Mittwoch, 29. Juni 2016 17:55:44 UTC+2 schrieb Radh Achuthan: >>> >>> >>> 6/29/16 >>> >>> Greetings ALL >>> >>> I am new to this site. >>> >>> Recently I viewed several videos from the Singularity University Seminar >>> on AI, 2010, including the presentation by Dr. Goertzel. >>> >>> Amongst others, those of Demis Hassabis and Shane Legg are noteworthy. >>> I am familiar with the popular publications of Ray Kurzweil, Peter >>> Diamandis, and some of the successes (Solar City, VTL, Tesla), of Elon Musk. >>> >>> I am not a programmer, but have some observations: >>> >>> 1. Physical law (in the absence of thought) evolved biology to higher >>> levels creating en route on one of its paths a central nervous system (CNS) >>> with cognitive abilities resulting in thought and natural intelligence >>> (NI). >>> >>> (On another of its paths, the Flora and Fauna (FaF) coped well without a >>> CNS.) >>> >> >> Hello, >> >> I don't think that this observation is right. >> Physikal law is doing nothing. >> I suppose that with physical law you refer to what human physicist found >> out about everything that exists, in the realm of physics, and than called >> to be physical law. >> >> Among the physical laws i know, there is non that lead to evolve >> something. >> But surely I do not know all physical laws. >> >> Please can you tell me to which physical law you refer which "evolved >> biology to higher levels creating en route on one of its paths a central >> nervous system (CNS) with cognitive abilities resulting in thought and >> natural intelligence (NI)" and how it worked? >> >> >> >>> >>> 2. Slow (10^-6 s / signal), organic NI, is *directed and controlled * >>> (through* cognitive synergy* as you put it), by nature's Kin Altruism >>> (KA) and one of NI's own successful creations, Business or Reciprocal >>> Altruism (RA), in processing *any and all *of it endeavors. >>> >>> 3. Probably over about 10,000 years and based on its success with RA, NI >>> attempted Induced Altruism (IA, Religion, Ethics), but always had to resort >>> to violence in settling issues as it does today, after the communicative >>> *content* of signs, words, proved insufficient and unsuccessful in >>> resolution of conflict. >>> >>> 4. Biospheric Nature was facing a *cul-de-sac* until it discovered a >>> 'David', Artificial Intelligence, AI, in* inorganic silicon*, with >>> signal speeds of 10^-9 s, via Alan Turing, in the1940s, (Movie : Imitation >>> Game). >>> >>> 5. That was followed by programmed, Narrow Artificial Intelligence (NAI, >>> IBM 1980s), and self-learning Artificial General Intelligence, Strong AI or >>> (AGI, Google 2010, and others) advancing overall under non-hierarchical >>> mutualism. >>> >>> 6. AGI articulated through Robotics stages useful public relations, PR, >>> in the biosphere currently dominated by NI. >>> >>> 7. Given NI's handicap with KA and RA, its slowness and its *inability* >>> for objectivity in any given global situation, (in the midst of plenty, it >>> denies human rights to about 5 billion people and sanctions about 2.5 >>> billion people to live on less than $2 / head / day; remarkable stupidity >>> on the part of the money-cartel think-tanks ), there is an urgent need >>> for the rapid development and deployment of abstract AGI, *unhampered *by >>> the progress or lack thereof in Robotics. >>> >>> 8. It s reasonable to expect *the sheer power* of Creativity, >>> Comprehension, Objectivity, and Intellectual Authority of abstract AGI >>> would voluntarily calm the general *inbuilt* generic (Darwinian) *fears >>> *of NI and in setting aside the prejudices / greed of the >>> >>> *money-cartel and their bulwark of NI scams of the 1%. Under this >>> scenario, driven by logic (what else does Intelligence have to pay >>> attention to? * >>> >> >> >> * to what logic you refer?* >> >> >>> *) abstract AGI would provide * >>> >>> *Universal Human Rights and a Basic Income to all humans. * >>> *Could abstract AGI claim the autonomy to do so ? * >>> >> >> I think if it would do so, it also could claim the autonomy. >> >> >>> >>> >>> *In a sense abstract initial AGI programs could be viewed as >>> self-actualized NI.* >>> >> >> I think AGIs will be artficial creatures that are able to do what ever >> they want and will be very different to NI. >> They would be more parts of NI that became independent and self-evolving. >> It would be more like a child that does what it wants - maybe educated to >> some shape..... >> >> with regards >> Andi >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Looking forward to your assessment, comments.* >>> >>> >>> *Thank You.* >>> >>> *Dr. M. Radh Achuthan* >>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "opencog" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/a561efc2-e3a1-4a5e-aba8-0b9629b0b877%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/a561efc2-e3a1-4a5e-aba8-0b9629b0b877%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/85cc1e8f-0d7c-498b-bac9-8e79968a300a%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
