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
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3c_pJ_CLJQ>
On 05.07.2019 00:51, Colin Hales wrote:
Hi Korrelan,
In my most recent posting there is this interaction that answers one
of your question:
----------------------
What's stopping you from continuing your work? You certainly
don't need our approval.
The lack of $3Billion for the chip foundry, the robot fabrication
facilities and the enormous test facility .....dozens of
scientists and makers, and the lack of 10-15 years of life needed
to create the AGI at BEE level, which is my defined goal. If I had
the $ I'd already be doing it, or I'd get it started. I have said
repeatedly here I have run out of life.
All I can do now is get others to see it must be done. That is why
I am here. To convince the community of the need to do AGI without
using computers .... is met as a cultural blaspheme. Look at the
discussion we're having! Imagine encountering this massive
inability to see what category the proposal is as science. Year
after year for 1/3 of my life. Try being told endlessly: "To
convince folks to do it I have to have already done it.", when the
approach I propose /creates the scientific proof that their
approach is valid/! Crazymaking.
---------------------
ASIDE: you said "/although there is no empirical data on how the human
brain functions/".? I am mystified by this statement. With my
neuroscientist hat on: There are libraries full of reports of
empirical data on how brains function. It's incomplete and sometimes
inaccurate, not absent. I am assuming you didn't mean the statement
the way it looks.
*In relation to the rest of your email (in science framework - see
below - terms):*
I accept it as a comment on an approach, and appreciate seeing a
commitment to being informed by nature ( in (e) neuro/cognitive
science, observation, framework: MIDDLE) and organising nature in a
manner that is informative in reaching your goal (framework (e) RIGHT,
abstraction te, a theory within neuroscience).
If you use this in a project aimed at AGI, and use it to then program
a computer of any kind, you are exploring an abstraction of nature -
a model - and you are on the RIGHT side of science. The original
*causality* of the nature you are studying is gone, replaced by the
causality of a computer. This locates the work on the RIGHT side of
the diagram, and if that the goal is to create AGI on the RIGHT, by
using a computer, then
1) there is an implicit and tacit acceptance of any and every
hypothesis that must be true for AGO to be reached from (e)RIGHT
2) That part of the science framework route to proving those
hypotheses has been abandoned (e)LEFT.
No matter how you approach this issue, we always end up at the same
point: In the science of AGI, (e) LEFT is empty of (inorganic)
exploration. Not just of my idea for an instance of it it. *Anyone's
idea for it. *Anyone can make a design choice. I merely observe that
an entire community using computers for AGI is doing theoretical
science with an expectation of reaching a goal that makes it an
anomaly in science without precedent, and for which remediation
demands that the goal be be approached in (e)LEFT, without using
computers, so that it is scientifically understood what fate awaits
those on (e)RIGHT doing AGI.
I don't have to prove to anyone that (e)LEFT is irrelevant in AGI. Nor
is (e)LEFT impossible ----I will be delivering a chip design for it,
to show it in-principle possible, now. On the contrary, those that
have abandoned (e)LEFT are obliged to make a case for why (e)LEFT has
been abandoned in this one place in science. A case for expecting AGI
success on (e)LEFT is already in place: centuries of existing science
results. It's where all existing artificial versions of a natural
thing were created. There are zero examples in science where an
artificial version of a natural thing was an identity with a computed
model of the natural thing.
Colin
image.png
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:21 PM korrelan <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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 damn thing, make it work…
prove it works.
Every now and again I like to take a break from teaching/
designing my AGI’s and consider human frailties, and check if my
design can simulate the symptoms, and/ or give any insights into
the prognosis/ diagnosis or cure.
I have a list, roughly ordered by complexity and today it’s the
turn of terminal or paradoxical lucidity (PL).Paradoxical Lucidity
is one of natures cruellest tricks, approx 75% of patients with
long term dementia will fully/ partially become conscious/ lucid
shortly before they die.It’s a very complex diagnosis that ties
into many other conditions and I’m greatly over simplifying the
topic for the purpose of explanation.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1552526019300950
Considering the phenomena in its simplest terms obviously begs the
question of how this can happen/ function. It seems intuitive that
for normal (ish) function to return the symptoms of dementia
cannot be caused by permanent damage/ change, or that something
like a build up of amyloid plaque is ultimately responsible, but
something is impeding consciousness, so what could it be.
Keep in mind I have already done this for a myriad of conditions
and phenomena, so I have insight into how my model behaves/
functions.I’ve replicated optical/ audio illusions, pareidolia,
schizophrenia, hallucinations, hypnotism, meditation (states of
mind), epilepsy, anaesthesia, NDE, and many more, all with in the
same model.
Firstly I read as much empirical information about the subject as
possible. Then formulate a theory of how those symptoms could
arise and manifest within my model. I then alter the models
balances and test, repeat until I get the desired results, making
notes all the way.
Within my model memory consolidation and consciousness are
extremely sensitive to the base frequencies of the Global Thought
Pattern (GTP). The high dimensional facets of memories are
encoded/ indexed by the state of the GTP performing the task at
hand, consciousness manifests from the harmonics within the GTP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJmdWfDTgLQ
This shows a small section (1.2mm², 0.01%, 10K neurons, 200K
synapse) of cerebral cortex from my model, I use it for testing
hypotheses and it encompasses all the functionality of the full
model. It’s learned 40K memory engram's segmented into 80 pattern
concepts along with a regular base GTP rhythm. The graph (lower
left) function is equivalent to real-time colour coded Golgi
staining, and shows the confidence the model has in recognising
the current pattern, shown by the scrolling bar. Notice the actual
pattern stream/ matrix on the upper right along with the injected
regular GTP rhythm just below. On the first pass it shows a very
high confidence in recognising the all patterns, both the episodic
sequence memories and the memories regarding the pattern structure
are being recalled/ accessed.On the second pass I change the base
frequency of just the GTP, notice how the memory retrieval/
recognition becomes sporadic. On the third pass I cut the GTP and
the confidence totally drops even though the 80 patterns are still
being injected. I then re-establish the GTP and normal operation
resumes. This shows how reliant/ sensitive the system is to the
state of the underlying base GTP frequencies.
The slow onset of dementia hints at the second pass, it’s not like
the global GTP disruption caused by anaesthetic, so I don’t think
it’s an imbalance in the neurotransmitter levels/ medium.It must
also be affecting the well established networks with diminished
plasticity; otherwise the brain would just adapt to the
disruptions and wouldn’t then be able to exhibit the PL phenomena.
So one cause of dementia could be an alteration of the base
frequencies within the GTP, and the PL phenomena could mean that
whatever is causing the phase change is related to a condition
that rises or reduces/ diminishes just before death. Allowing the
GTP to phase back through its normal frequency domain and thus
allowing consciousness to temporarily return.My current main
candidate is intracranial pressure, as altering the shape of the
connectome can also have adverse effects on the phase of the GTP,
further pondering is required.
My point being that… although there is no empirical data on how
the human brain functions it is still possible to gain insights
and build a working model through experimentation and cross
reference, and although this is a low resolution insight into the
functioning of the brain it hints that so far my schema is correct.
Indeed, IMO this is the only way to do it, you have to work the
problems. Applying/ finding empirical scientific proof of every
required step/ concept would make the project impossible,
especially to a lone researcher with limited resources.
:)
*Artificial General Intelligence List
<https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* / AGI / see discussions
<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants
<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options
<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink
<https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M34897a9caf596f5359920d4d>
------------------------------------------
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink:
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T4cc8d68d18f1759a-Mfe333f692248fa4b415093b2
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
