i think, but do not know, that consideration of Body Integrity Disorder https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19132621/ might shed some interesting light on this discussion.
davew On Wed, Apr 13, 2022, at 11:06 AM, glen wrote: > Yeah, *if* that's how the brain works, sure. But from my (limited) > experience, brain anatomy and connectomes exhibit robustness (multiple > parts per single phenomenon) and polyphenism (multiple phenomena per > single part). So, while it seems reasonable to assume the brain is > somehow a linearly composed construct, I doubt that it is. In order for > > d = d - lesion + knowledgeOfDevice, > > the device has to also participate in everything else the lesioned part > participated in. Otherwise, we obtain > > lesion > knowledgeOfDevice, and > d < d + knowledgeOfDevice. > > Even if there is such a linear way to do such things, the error terms > will swamp the operators. Of course, perhaps there's some higher order > calculus over anatomy and connectomes such that "distance" isn't so > naive. But at that point, "distance" is a misleading term ... > "complexity" might be a better one. > > On 4/13/22 10:47, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> Ok, so suppose we have Joe as a guinea pig. The distance between a non-Joe >> committee understanding the things Joe does is distance "d" before the >> implant. First is a surgery to remove some part of Joe's brain. Now Joe >> can't identify his favorite song. Poor Joe. Second is a surgery to >> implant a device that will recognize his favorite song again. Joe recovers >> and he is enjoying the melody again. Lots of testing is done to ensure >> that Joe performs on a large battery of tests in the same way. However, now >> the committee understands exactly how the device recognizes the melody of >> Joe's favorite song. Thus, the distance is d - knowledgeOfDevice, and the >> mind/body gap is better rationalized. Of course, Joe would never consent >> to this surgery without an incentive, and presumably his new gadget gives >> him extra features that are not activated until this testing procedure is >> complete. After activation he is Joe(postActivation) > Joe(priorSurgery). >> So, in that sense I agree that "d" may increase because Joe discovers novel >> uses for the implant. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen >> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 10:15 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive >> heuristics >> >> Right, I think I got that. But as with Jon's consistent evocation of >> "mereology" <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/> and our prior >> discussion of has-a vs is-a, an implant is not different in kind from one's >> arm or tongue, only in degree. I admit it can seem fundamentally different >> to an individual organism. But over the species, our spectacles, pencils, >> electron microscopes, etc. are all part of the extended phenotype ... just >> like our fingers and toes. And if we end up with CRISPR or adding implants >> in the (artificial) womb as a banal part of making babies, then it'll be >> more obvious the difference is one of degree, not kind. >> >> On 4/13/22 10:02, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> The distance is the possibility of an implant or interface. That thing can >>> be studied separate from anyone that adopts the implant. Some implants >>> might evolve after implant, some might have fixed function. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 9:59 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive >>> heuristics >>> >>> Yeah, I agree with almost everything, here, except the "distancing" >>> metaphor. There is no distance between mind and body and there never will >>> be. Similarly, there is no fundamental difference between machine and meat, >>> digital and analog. Regardless, cyborg-ification is the future of machine >>> intelligence. (And cyber-physical systems are the future of computation.) >>> We'll simultaneously be hosts for and be hosted by machines through any >>> kind of singularity. >>> >>> On 4/13/22 09:45, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>> < But we don't "create the neural structure over and over", at least >>>> we don't create the *same* neural structure over and over. > >>>> >>>> Anastomotic systems aren't useful for the purpose of distancing mind from >>>> body. As you say, neural systems reflect the environment of their >>>> training. So, when machine learning systems are racist, it is because >>>> they observe racist behavior. That doesn't give insight to racism. >>>> Explainable AI aims to extract meaning from anastomotic systems and record >>>> it as artifacts that are subject independent. By implanting interfaces >>>> to such artifacts, or by splicing-in an existing freeze-dried anastomotic >>>> ANN (Neuralink), or even graft in pre-trained tissue, I posit, one could >>>> skip through stages of development more quickly. So, ML systems that >>>> mimic things are the beginning of the mind/body distancing process, not >>>> the end of it. >>>> >>>> Hugh Herr's team at MIT is designing prostheses for amputees. These >>>> devices link to the nearest nerves remaining after the amputation. Users >>>> have enough plasticity to learn again how to walk, run, climb, etc. using >>>> these signals and artificial devices. I don't see why it should be >>>> different if the interfaces were in the brain. Of course, if the >>>> interfaces are high-level enough, it would pervade personality. One could >>>> risk proliferating personality disorders by adoption of genius modules. >>>> Ok, then one could identify personality disorders through diagnostics and >>>> learn how to cut them out. Software defects, basically. You'll be so >>>> much better in V2! >>>> >>>> I'm not claiming that digital ML has yet matched human intelligence, >>>> although I think it will. Rather, I'm taking the meat bath and its >>>> digital counterpart for granted and wondering what the higher-order >>>> technology derived from us will look like. I doubt it would be the >>>> Matrix battery scenario (whether heat or spiritual energy), more like >>>> we'll all be walking around acquiring information for the collective >>>> anastomotic data mining system. That system would be interesting itself, >>>> but the "goal" in my mind would be to continually compress the story. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 8:37 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive >>>> heuristics >>>> >>>> But we don't "create the neural structure over and over", at least we >>>> don't create the *same* neural structure over and over. One way in which >>>> big-data-trained self-attending ANN structures now mimic meat intelligence >>>> is in that very intense training period. Development (from zygote to >>>> (dysfunctional) adult) is the training. Adulting is the testing/execution. >>>> But these transformer based mechanisms don't seem, in my ignorance, to be >>>> as flexible as those grown in meat. Do we have self-attending machines >>>> that can change what parts of self they're attending? Change from soft to >>>> hard? Allow for self-attending the part that's self-attending (and up and >>>> around in a loopy way)? To what extent can we make them modal, swapping >>>> from learning mode to perform mode? As SteveS points out, can machine >>>> intelligence "play" or "practice" in the sense normal animals like us do? >>>> Are our modes even modes? Or is all performance a type of play? To what >>>> extent can we make them "social", collecting/integrating multiple >>>> transformer-based ANNs so as to form a materially open problem solving >>>> collective? >>>> >>>> Anyway, it seems to me the neural structure is *not* an encoding of a >>>> means to do things. It's a *complement* to the state(s) of the world in >>>> which the neural structure grew. Co-evolutionary processes seem different >>>> from encoding. Adversaries don't encode models of their opponents so much >>>> as they mold their selves to smear into, fit with, innervate, anastomose >>>> [⛧], their adversaries. This is what makes 2 party games similar to team >>>> games and distinguishes "play" (infinite or meta-games) from "gaming" >>>> (finite, or well-bounded payoff games). >>>> >>>> Again, I'm not suggesting machine intelligence can't do any of this; or >>>> even that they aren't doing it to some small extent now. I'm only >>>> suggesting they'll have to do *more* of it in order to be as capable as >>>> meat intelligence. >>>> >>>> [⛧] I like "anastomotic" for adversarial systems as opposed to >>>> "innervated" for co-evolution because anastomotic tissue seems (to me) to >>>> result from a kind of high pressure, biomechanical stress. Perhaps an >>>> analogy of soft martial arts styles to innervate and hard styles to >>>> anastomose? >>>> >>>> On 4/12/22 20:43, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>> Today, humans go to some length to record history, to preserve companies >>>>> and their assets. But for some reason preserving the means to do things >>>>> -- the essence of a mind -- this has this different status. Why not seek >>>>> to inherit minds too? Sure, I can see the same knowledge base can be >>>>> represented in different ways. But, studying those neural >>>>> representations could also be informative. What if neural structures >>>>> have similar topological properties given some curriculum? What a waste >>>>> to create that neural structure over and over.. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 7:22 PM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Selective cultural processes generate adaptive >>>>> heuristics >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4/12/22 5:53 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>>> I am not saying such a system would not need to be predatory or >>>>>> parasitic, just that it can be arranged to preserve the contents of a >>>>>> library. >>>>> >>>>> And I can't help knee-jerking that when a cell attempts to live >>>>> forever (and/or replicate itself perfectly) that it becomes a tumour >>>>> in the >>>>> organ(ism) that gave rise to it, and even metastasizes, spreading it's >>>>> hubris to other organs/systems. >>>>> >>>>> Somehow, I think the inter-planetary post-human singularians are more >>>>> like metastatic cells than "the future of humanity". Maybe that is NOT >>>>> a dead-end, but my mortality-chauvanistic "self" rebels. Maybe if I >>>>> live long enough I'll come around... or maybe there will be a CAS >>>>> mediated edit to fix that pessimism in me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 12, 2022, at 4:29 PM, glen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dude. Every time I think we could stop, you say something I object to. >>>>>>> >8^D You're doing it on purpose. I'm sure of it ... like pulling the >>>>>>> wings off flies and cackling like a madman. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, the maintenance protocol must be *part of* the meat-like >>>>>>> intelligence. That's why I mention things like suicide or starving >>>>>>> yourself because your wife stops feeding you. To me, a >>>>>>> forever-autopoietic system seems like a perpetual motion machine ... >>>>>>> there's something being taken for granted by the conception ... some >>>>>>> unlimited free energy or somesuch. >>>>>>> > > > -- > Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
