Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

'Kaput' birds, it's the Turtle https://www.cnet.com/news/trump-says-revolutionary-war-troops-took-over-airports-and-a-meme-takes-off/ On 04.07.2019 05:43, Colin Hales wrote: Hi Matt, Excellent, I think we can progress a bit. The columns are accurate. Let me give some more detail on the

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

timal efficiency within any context is a given state of knowledge-at-work? My view being where optimal efficiency (in a classical sense) => regenerative competency. Robert Benjamin From: korrelan Sent: Thursday, 04 July 2019 22:35 To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] ARGH

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Go to the mormons, they have the money for the largest facility after all. But "if you build It..." and any of the dead comes alive It should still respond to vodka. Even if it's only Mormon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3c_pJ_CLJQ On 05.07.2019

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi Colin >In my most recent posting there is this interaction that answers one of your >question: I presume you mean my comment on spare cash and resources, it was actually a statement not a question but I understand your point of view and predicament.  In an ideal scenario your method,

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

e to begin with. What knowledge about dementia >> was reverse engineered from the BOK? >> >> You've obviously built a corresponding 'Toolkit', and many more >> components of such a system of systems. I think your points on >> experimentation are insightful and most val

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

It occurs to me that the raw framework itself may not have been properly understood. So I've made a generic version. Please note that this framework was measured, by studying scientists. It is, in and of itself, an example of the science deliverables ('laws of nature') RIGHT *te*. that are

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

@Robert Taking dementia as a single problem, there can be a myriad of theories that can describe its function.  Taken in the context of a system that can also simulate many other human mental conditions you start to limit the possibilities, which is the point of the exercise. The destination

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Ok, shut up, you are making me feel like a blithering idiot. =P How much hardware do you need? I'll ogranize a kickstarter or something and get you everything you need. I just need to do the engineering work to design exactly the machine you need and convice enough people that you aren't a

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Colin the neurons only resemble the fuel in a reactor and the minds are its chain reactions. On 04.07.2019 05:43, Colin Hales wrote: Hi Matt, Excellent, I think we can progress a bit. The columns are accurate. Let me give some more detail on the examples. Let's just focus on flight for now.

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

You've obviously built a corresponding 'Toolkit', and many more components > of such a system of systems. I think your points on experimentation are > insightful and most valid. Thanks for sharing. > > Robert Benjamin > > ---------- > *From:* korrelan > *S

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

of systems. I think your points on experimentation are insightful and most valid. Thanks for sharing. Robert Benjamin From: korrelan Sent: Thursday, 04 July 2019 11:21 To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] ARGH!!! Unless you have the spare cash, time and resources

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Unless you have the spare cash, time and resources then the whole argument is moot, and you must find another way of achieving the goals within your means.  You can negate most of the above by taking a leaf out the Wright brothers methodology… take a leap of faith (in yourself) and just build the

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi Berick, Sorry about the previous glitch in your name. I'm responding in-line, if that's ok. On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:56 AM Berick Cook wrote: > If RIGHT produces something that is functionally equivalent (demonstrated > via empirical evidence) to MIDDLE, then is LEFT not irrelevant? > If

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

If RIGHT produces something that is functionally equivalent (demonstrated via empirical evidence) to MIDDLE, then is LEFT not irrelevant? If someone makes a LEFT that is functionally equivalent (demonstrated via empirical evidence) to MIDDLE, then is RIGHT not irrelevant? Why does it matter if

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

BTW, Brick, welcome to the fray! It's hard work, but worth it, I think. :-) Colin On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:34 AM Berick Cook wrote: > So what you're saying, Colin, is that the computation that occurs via the > binary transistors of a computer is fundamentally different than the > computation

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Berick, On a slight aside, I have posted here before about the differences between unidirectional computation, what computers do, and bidirectional computation, what circuits and neurons do. While you can simulate bidirectional systems on unidirectional hardware, e.g. like SPICE does, it is SO

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

So what you're saying, Colin, is that the computation that occurs via the binary transistors of a computer is fundamentally different than the computation that occurs in the neural structures of the brain? And you take issue with people assuming that both forms of computation "can create

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Wed., 3 Jul. 2019, 7:05 am Matt Mahoney, wrote: > So if computation is not behind intelligence (based on 65 years of AGI > failure) and you have no idea what is, then what is the basis of your chip > design, and what do you hope to accomplish with it? > This just keeps on happening. I have

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Matt (and Colin), I would like to clarify what I think is your real question: Nothing complex works the first time. You build it, you turn it on, it doesn't work, and you start debugging it. It is very close to impossible to debug anything without a solid understanding of how it should work,

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

So if computation is not behind intelligence (based on 65 years of AGI failure) and you have no idea what is, then what is the basis of your chip design, and what do you hope to accomplish with it? On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, 10:00 AM Colin Hales wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:59 PM Matt

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:59 PM Matt Mahoney wrote: > Colin, in case you haven't noticed, Peter has actually produced some AI > (aigo, which seems to have better language understanding than Amazon's > Alexa, at least in the demos I've seen), while all you have is a theory > that AI comes from

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Colin, in case you haven't noticed, Peter has actually produced some AI (aigo, which seems to have better language understanding than Amazon's Alexa, at least in the demos I've seen), while all you have is a theory that AI comes from consciousness, which comes from EM waves or some other

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi Matt, On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Matt Mahoney wrote: > Colin, yes you answered my questions about consciousness. To summarize, by > consciousness you mean qualia, that which makes you different than a > philosophical zombie. Since a zombie is by definition behaviorally > identical to a

Re: [agi] ARGH!!! - for Peter

Peter Perhaps your party would do well to share some of your the-real-state-of-AGI as well. I'm certain researchers here would love to do a checkpoint. How about it? Rgds Robert Benjamin -- Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink:

RE: [agi] ARGH!!!

of the reasons for my ‘design choices’. Building AGI requires a combination of theory, engineering and development. Science and philosophy already provide plenty of AGI theory – if you look in the right places. From: Colin Hales Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 7:47 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] ARGH

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Colin, yes you answered my questions about consciousness. To summarize, by consciousness you mean qualia, that which makes you different than a philosophical zombie. Since a zombie is by definition behaviorally identical to a human, there is no test for consciousness and no capability that depends

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:57 AM Colin Hales wrote: > ...I'd like to do something different this time. We're part of the 'old > guard' and it's up to us to demonstrate how an intellectual discussion can > be fruitfully conducted to advance the topic in question. So I'd like to > run an experiment.

RE: [agi] ARGH!!!

, July 1, 2019 5:03 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] ARGH!!! Hi Peter, On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:37 PM Peter Voss mailto:agi3pe...@gmail.com> > wrote: AGI is not primarily about building a brain -- it is about building a mind. The major discipline is not neuroscience but cognitive s

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi Peter, On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:37 PM Peter Voss wrote: > AGI is not primarily about building a brain -- it is about building a > mind. The major discipline is not neuroscience but cognitive science (and > epistemology).. > > AGI is about figuring out what human-level cognition entails and

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Next installment. Matt? This is where the questions you asked about consciousness get my answer, except for my specific proposal for the brain biophysics that originates consciousness. That discussion is implicit to the chip design. It's the last thing to do before the silicon replacement

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

AGI is not primarily about building a brain -- it is about building a mind.  The major discipline is not neuroscience but cognitive science (and  epistemology).. AGI is about figuring out what human-level cognition entails and then engineering mechanisms to implement this. AGI Checklist -

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Mon., 1 Jul. 2019, 1:09 pm Costi Dumitrescu, wrote: > Engineering. Yes. > > But we do want to build artificial birds. Against the leaf eating > insects and other anthropization balancing items. > > Other industries studied birds too. The aircraft industry studied > (underwater) boats more

Re: [agi] ARGH!!! - Pull this plug already!

t;http://www.youtube.com> *From:* Steve Richfield mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com>> *Sent:* Sunday, 30 June 2019 20:08 *To:* AGI *Subject:* Re: [agi] ARGH!!! Colin, At GREAT risk of representing the opinion

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:02 AM Matt Mahoney wrote: > Colin, in your quest to create an artificial consciousness, can you > explain: > > 1. How do you test a human, animal, robot, or program to tell if it is > conscious or not? > > 2. What aspect of human behavior is possible in a machine only if

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:08 AM Matt Mahoney wrote: > Colin, you seemed confused. AGI is not science. It is engineering. Science > is about finding theories that make useful predictions and testing them > with experiments. Engineering is about designing and building solutions to > problems. > >

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Colin, in your quest to create an artificial consciousness, can you explain: 1. How do you test a human, animal, robot, or program to tell if it is conscious or not? 2. What aspect of human behavior is possible in a machine only if it is conscious? 3. What aspect of consciousness, if any,

Re: [agi] ARGH!!! - Pull this plug already!

I technology has > entered the mainstream of ... > www.youtube.com > > > -- > *From:* Steve Richfield > *Sent:* Sunday, 30 June 2019 20:08 > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] ARGH!!! > > Colin, > > At GREAT risk of representing the opinions of o

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 2:37 AM Costi Dumitrescu wrote: > Colin, any connection to mormon thought that you're aware of? Did or do > you attend any meetings or events? Or taking anything from that group? A > simple Yes or No. > > No. I am a devout atheist. :-)

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Colin, At GREAT risk of representing the opinions of others here ... The AGI argument seems to be that a computer need NOT work anything like brains work to be able to problem solving and "think" - that people here can discover another way, without ANYTHING to guide them, or even suggesting that

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Colin, any connection to mormon thought that you're aware of? Did or do you attend any meetings or events? Or taking anything from that group? A simple Yes or No. On 30.06.2019 06:56, Colin Hales wrote: On Sun., 30 Jun. 2019, 12:20 pm Costi Dumitrescu, mailto:costi.dumitre...@gmx.com>>

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Sun., 30 Jun. 2019, 12:20 pm Costi Dumitrescu, wrote: > What is the most likely biological cell for an AGI robot to invent first? > Please be patient. I will get to my proposed design. Fundamentally, it's a 3D cellular automaton and each cell is literally made of the physics it's made of in

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

ARGH!!! is definitely the right name for this discussion. Please look carefully at my most recent post. It has 4 very different contexts of 'computation' across the two science disciplines (neuroscience and computer science). I think I have accurately distentangled them and allocated them to the

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

What is the most likely biological cell for an AGI robot to invent first? On 30.06.2019 05:16, Mike Archbold wrote: I think we can safely say that 1) much of the contention is due to how one defines a computer and 2) the brain is definitely not a digital computer. On Friday, June 28, 2019,

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

I think we can safely say that 1) much of the contention is due to how one defines a computer and 2) the brain is definitely not a digital computer. On Friday, June 28, 2019, Colin Hales wrote: > > > On Thu., 27 Jun. 2019, 5:47 am Mike Archbold, wrote: > >> Probably what most people mean by

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Sun., 30 Jun. 2019, 8:29 am Alan Grimes via AGI, wrote: > > Questions? Comments? Problems? We need to get this right. I cannot > > depict the context of brain science and AI/AGI properly, nor the > > uniqueness of my chip design without everyone understanding this. It's > > required learning.

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Questions? Comments? Problems? We need to get this right. I cannot depict the context of brain science and AI/AGI properly, nor the uniqueness of my chip design without everyone understanding this. It's required learning. Sorry! :-) NUTS! Talking about chip design is NUTS unless you can

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Colin, There are two radically different points of view of the SAME thing: 1. Real-world neurons are hypercomplex, with individual synapses having radical nonlinearities complete with discontinuities, and often including differentiation and/or integration, plus ???. Further, individual synapses

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

pen to public criticism. I'd love to see all that in a white paper one day, or in an academic proposal. Robert Benjamin From: Colin Hales Sent: Saturday, 29 June 2019 08:38 To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] ARGH!!! Hi Steve glad to see you back. On Sa

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi Steve glad to see you back. On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 3:58 PM Steve Richfield wrote: > Matt, Colin, et al, > > The REAL underlying problem is that AGI started too soon - there just > isn't enough known to be able to "fill in the blanks" and build generally > intelligent systems. Neuroscience

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi, Later (few years), once the background science issues are sorted out, I'll do the detailed planning/costing for likely route to the first AGI is as follows: 0) It is big science directed at one big result. It is a 'moon-shot' or 'CERN Collider' or a 'WEBB Telescope' or a 'Human Brain-Project'

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On 6/29/19 7:58 AM, Steve Richfield wrote: Matt, Colin, et al, The REAL underlying problem is that AGI started too soon - there just isn't enough known to be able to "fill in the blanks" and build generally intelligent systems. All that seems to be needed are a few million dollars and a

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Matt, Colin, et al, The REAL underlying problem is that AGI started too soon - there just isn't enough known to be able to "fill in the blanks" and build generally intelligent systems. Neuroscience needed more time and money to provide this information. However, the way things have been going,

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On 6/29/19 7:06 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: On 6/29/19 5:21 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote: An AGI megaproject would require thousands of people working during several decades on it. Costing tens of billions of US$ or ???. As far as I know, it has not started.

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On 6/29/19 5:21 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote: An AGI megaproject would require thousands of people working during several decades on it. Costing tens of billions of US$ or ???. As far as I know, it has not started. Even worse, I cannot name any megaproject today in

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote: An AGI megaproject would require thousands of people working during several decades on it. Costing tens of billions of US$ or ???. As far as I know, it has not started. Even worse, I cannot name any megaproject today in the information technology domain. uh,

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Thu., 27 Jun. 2019, 5:47 am Mike Archbold, wrote: > Probably what most people mean by computer is roughly the usual common > sense digital or perhaps quantum computer. There are also theoretical > hypercomputers. I guess I would define computer simply as something > that follows the usual

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi again Matt, The claim that a human brain is a computer is and always has been a scientific hypothesis used to guide the science of artificial intelligence. It's not a law of nature. That hypothesis may be true. We cannot use 'everything that can be computed can be computed by a Turing

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi Matt, The purpose of the paper is to critically examine the operational state of the practice of the science/engineering of artificial (general) intelligence. Scientific evidence acting in support of claims about the state of the science will be required and supplied by the discussion. Such

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Steve? You seem to have gone quiet. Can we start a conversation along the lines you suggest? That is, directed at exploring our differences in what counts as an empirical science of artificial general intelligence? Colin -- Artificial General

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Colin, will your proposed paper contain an experimental results section? I realize you favor the neuroscience approach to AGI. We need neuroscience to figure out how the brain does what it does, as well as computer science to test the theories that it suggests. Have you done any experiments on

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

ikipedia.org From: bas...@starynkevitch.net Sent: Friday, 28 June 2019 10:43 To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] ARGH!!! On Friday, June 28, 2019 08:55 CEST, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies wrote: "Theory: give enough computer scientists enough k

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Friday, June 28, 2019 08:55 CEST, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies wrote:   "Theory: give enough computer scientists enough keyboards and time, and they will eventually figure out or stumble on whatever it takes to have general intelligence  Experiment: let the world's programmers work on

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

m: Colin Hales Sent: Friday, 28 June 2019 05:00 To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] ARGH!!! On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:33 AM Steve Richfield mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Colin, The obvious thing missing from neuroscience and AGI is application of the Scientific Method. Theory: give

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Hi Steve, I am aware of a huge variety of analogue simulators used back in the day. My favourites are usually associated with the old-school cyberneticists. Not the one you mentioned. Never mind, it's moot. I've just posted to the 'test' thread, where you'll find more clarity on the meaning of

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

A computer is any device which can simulate a universal Turing machine up to some memory bound. Real computers are finite state machines. But with sufficient time and memory they can perform any halting computation because all halting computations use a finite amount of tape. My brain is a

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Colin, You are apparently unaware of the varied history of analog computers, that include things like electrolytic computers that operated in small tanks of conductive liquid. These were used to design motors and transformers using the similarity of electric fields to magnetic fields. Also, the

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

On Wed., 26 Jun. 2019, 4:25 am Steve Richfield, wrote: > Stefan, > > I probably have more neuroscience background than anyone else on this > list, possibly excepting Colin, having worked as a research assistant in > the Department of Neurological Surgery at the University of Washington, so > I

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

ejanover.com More info. resonance.is From: Steve Richfield Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2019 20:25 To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] ARGH!!! Oops, my reply was meant for Alan. Steve On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 11:24 AM Steve Richfield mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Stefan, I probably have mor

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Thanks Steve, but it wasn't me who wrote the post. I just found his style enjoyable :) On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 20:26 Steve Richfield wrote: > Stefan, > > I probably have more neuroscience background than anyone else on this > list, possibly excepting Colin, having worked as a research assistant

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Oops, my reply was meant for Alan. Steve On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 11:24 AM Steve Richfield wrote: > Stefan, > > I probably have more neuroscience background than anyone else on this > list, possibly excepting Colin, having worked as a research assistant in > the Department of Neurological

Re: [agi] ARGH!!!

Nice tantrum On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 15:21 Alan Grimes via AGI wrote: > I read some posts here yesterday that strongly indicate that people have > not studied neural science *AT ALL* and I'm like. RGGH > > YOU FUCKING IMBICILES!!! YOU COME ON THIS GODDAMN LIST WITHOUT DOING > YOUR