One simple algorithm could explain human intelligence

a reply to: namelesss

Yet you have neither supported them with logic nor science.

a reply to: cuckooold

something more benevolent?

I view biological death as the greatest of disease. I think fully mapping out the brain, and creating computers capable of true intelligence, is the way forward for humanity, and possibly as close to immortality as one could get. Giving us the ability to live longer and healthier lives is a benevolent force.

This research is a needed step in that direction. In the right direction.

Anyways, fascinating article

Can it simulate autonomy?

a reply to: cuckooold

"Many people have long speculated that there has to be a basic design principle from which intelligence originates and the brain evolves, like how the double helix of DNA and genetic codes are universal for every organism," says lead researcher Joe Tsien from Augusta University in Georgia.

"We present evidence that the brain may operate on an amazingly simple mathematical logic."

Of course there is a simple design foundation for the brain, it's called neurons. Stick a bunch of them together in the right way and they will do very interesting things, as demonstrated by our deep artificial neural networks. However it's still not that simple, there are actually dozens of different types of neurons, and although each one may only do some rather simple operations, when lots of them are put together they can perform extremely complex calculations. The whole trick of the brain is that it has dozens of different neural networks all tightly integrated with each other... one area of the brain for vision, another for motor control, another for language, etc. It's like if you took all the most advanced neural networks on Earth and then merged them together in a very complex fashion so that the networks were able to share data. Then you may possibly start to get something resembling a human brain, but there will be absolutely nothing simple about it.

Ill sum it up. I think therefore I am. Done. Pay me my money and give me my Nobel.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: namelesss

Yet you have neither supported them with logic nor science.

I'm wondering if I need to go through some lengthy explanations, especially since you offered no specific questions.
Perhaps if you were able to provide some refutation, I can speak to that.
My point here is not to 'convince' you, or anyone, of anything.
I am here to share, if you have a problem with what I share, feel free to offer a refutation, either logically and/or scientifically or any other way that you wish.
If your refutations are valid, I'll have to alter my theories, if not, not.
Good luck. *__-

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: namelesss

Could you provide your sources for this?

This, in particular, being what.
I do have my own research and 'original thoughts' on the subject.
As I mentioned elsewhere, rather than providing a thesis on my thinking and observations, I am happy to answer to any alleged refutations of anything that I offer.
Science has long been trying to tie thoughts in with brain activity in a 'causal' manner, and always has failed.
Nor are there any stored thoughts to be found in the brain. I understand neuroscience is desperately looking, but the predictive ability of my theories say that it will never be found. *__-

I know that when you remove very small pieces of certain areas of the brain such as the Hippocampus, you are prevented from forming any new memories, the Amygdala for learning and formation of emotions etc, I could go on.

When the paradigm/Perspective is altered, naturally the 'abilities' are altered.
Yet we find over and over that, for instance, the blind can 'see', even with no eyes. Colors can be discerned by touch. By scent...
It is not the brain that perceives...

So while we do not completely 100% understand how groupings/clusters of neurons and connections form to create a type of biological hard drive, what you are saying is not supported in any type of real neurological sciences.

The hard drive is to keep the body functioning.
What neuroscience doesn't know is, ultimately, explained by my theories.
What neuroscience does know does not refute my theories.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: namelesss

A lot of words but it sounds a little too much like a horoscope and you've lost me.

If brain's don't store thought, then why does bashing brains effect memory?

New Perspectives perceive new things. There can be no 'causality' proven, ever.
'Causality' takes 'time'.
If brains 'do' store 'thought', science has been looking for that for sometime, show me where? Show me the evidence?
Without any, we seem to need a new Perspective, a clear examination of the assumptions that no longer function!
What might 'memory' be, in a timeless/motionless Reality, a Holistic Reality, as quantum mechanics is finding 'this Reality' to be?

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

If true, we would need a completely fundamental redefinition of 'memory'.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: namelesss

A lot of words but it sounds a little too much like a horoscope and you've lost me.

If brain's don't store thought, then why does bashing brains effect memory?

New Perspectives perceive new things.
We are a unique Perspective every moment of existence! You can just as well claim that the hamburger that you had for lunch affected your memory of what you needed to get at the store, and forgot.
No 'brain bashing', just some french fries...

There can be no 'causality' proven, ever.
'Causality' takes 'time'.
If brains 'do' store 'thought', science has been looking for that for sometime, show me where? Show me the evidence?
Without any, we seem to need a new Perspective, a clear examination of the assumptions that no longer function!
What might 'memory' be, in a timeless/motionless Reality, a Holistic Reality, as quantum mechanics is finding 'this Reality' to be?

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

If true, we would need a completely fundamental redefinition of 'memory'.

a reply to: namelesss

You have provided no evidence for your claims to refute. That which is presented without evidence, can equally be dismissed without evidence.

a reply to: namelesss

Nameless is 100% correct. You said:

Science has long been trying to tie thoughts in with brain activity in a 'causal' manner, and always has failed.

That's the key. They can't reduce cause to a material explanation. This is because they can't and it ties into the free will theorem.

Science can only identify and measure mechanisms. They can't reduce the cause of these mechanisms to occur to material explanations. This is because on a fundamental level of reality human consciousness has to have choice.

If I go into the lab, I can eith measure spin(x) or momentum(p) of a "particle." That "particle doesn't have an existence as spin up/spin down or some momentum until human consciousness makes a choice as to what observable it's going to measure. Humans are making a conscious choice to bring something into existence. A reality where I measure spin down doesn't exist until I make the choice to measure spin.

Science can show you what part of the brain is active when we do certain things but science can't explain or reduce to materialism the cause of this activity.

For instance, I just held my right arm in the air for 5 seconds. Science can show you what part of the brain is active when I held up my right hand but the material can't explain what I experienced when I held up my right hand because brain activity doesn't give you a cause of the activity occurring. Only consciousness can explain why I caused activity in the brain to occur at that moment when I raised my right hand.

It's just like a DVD player. I can show you what parts of the DVD player light up when I press play or eject but that activity of the DVD player can't explain why I watched Scarface or Braveheart. That activity of the DVD player can't explain why I chose to watch these movies at this time. Only consciousness can.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: namelesss

A lot of words but it sounds a little too much like a horoscope and you've lost me.

If brain's don't store thought, then why does bashing brains effect memory?

What if the brain is a quantum transceiver into and between the space-time that your existence laid an impression into, and the now? What if memory is the tuning of this quantum transceiver to those space-time segments that we call memories. These memories are not actually inside the brain but are located at the space-time instances caused by your occupation there. The quantum transceiver gets damaged, can't tune properly, or some other anomaly and it appears as memory damage that is brain damage, but in reality it is transceiver damage so there is no connection.

a reply to: cuckooold

I do not like neural-centric AI programming at all because you cannot know what your AI is thinking, which as has been covered on ATS, can be dangerous. I'm focused more on systems where it can be known what your agents are thinking, it is predictable, and it is controllable.

I am in full agreement that advanced intelligence can be done in a few simple algorithms. However, it can be done more efficiently the more specific you get with the algorithms. So, there is a trade-off there.

These small simple algorithms will require a generally predicable amount of hardware performance. So for example, we know the human brain has something like 10 trillion neurons with perhaps 10 connections each for a total of 100 trillion synaptic connections. And on average, these fire a certain number of times per second. So you can apply these numbers neural cluster framework alleged by this story to effectively be a universal algorithm for network formation in the brain, and then run the numbers to see what kind of hardware you need.

I do believe that the technology like IBM Synapse can be applied and this will be a possible solution to AGI. Its just a matter of putting together all the elements. However, I do believe you also could use a proper high-level framework that is not being considered by some or most AI researchers, like the OpenCog Prime framework.

So, you have people assembling AI from the bottom up based on neural designs, but you also have people assembling AI from the top down based on hierarchical designs. I do believe the only way to get AGI at this very moment is to use both a framework like OpenCog and general neural algorithms. Bottom-up systems have yet to be truly intelligent, and top-down systems have yet to be truly intelligent. This story is basically yet another crack that the "emergence" theory of intelligence that basically says if you put enough pieces of smarts in a bucket, the bucket will be intelligent. However, that has yet to pan out. The top-down approach has so many parts that it has yet to be put together by anyone so far as I know.

Wow, talk about a delusional crowd...
Life, death, awareness, consience....

What do you ACTUALLY, "KNOW".....

Nothing

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: namelesss
You have provided no evidence for your claims to refute.

No, dear, you do not need 'evidence' to have something to refute, all you need is an assertion, a hypothesis, a premise, a claim...
I claim "All humans have three eyes!" which you handily refute by stepping forward and presenting your two-eyed self! Just that single exception refuted my assertion.
Capisce'? *__-
A feature of your refutation can include evidence, but it not mandatory.
Logic is a grand means of refutation, and there would probably even be some science to support (eventually).

That which is presented without evidence, can equally be dismissed without evidence.

Polly wanna cracker?
Only a fool would dismiss something on the mere technicality that there is no (as yet) evidence.
I just noticed in the news headlines that just now is science able to test (to the positive) one of Einstein's wackier predictions regarding 'gravity waves'.
I'm sure there were many who dismissed his hypothesis/theory due to lack of 'evidence'.
History leaves them buried under a dusty pile of excrement, while Einstein (for the most part) still 'shines'!

a reply to: namelesss

So no evidence, then. Ok, gotcha .

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: namelesss

So no evidence, then. Ok, gotcha .

If all that I have written has just floated in one ear and out the next, I see no point in continuing.

Have a nice night.

a reply to: cuckooold

"Fascinating stuff, with potential far reaching consequences. Mass unemployment and Skynet, or something more benevolent?"

Taken to its logical conclusion and in conjunction with other cybernetics technologies which are maturing the singularity combined with man merging with machine with the ability to learn at an exponential rate is most lightly the consequence.

As to the nature or benevolence of such a thing well you cannot make an omelette of such magnitude without breaking a few billion eggs.

Us mere mortals will just need to hope humanity 2.0 affords us the luxury of a better Zoo than TPTB currently provide.

a reply to: namelesss

You seem to be of the opinion that you waffling on making unsubstantiated claims is somehow equal to scientific evidence. Unfortunately, it's not.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: cuckooold

"Many people have long speculated that there has to be a basic design principle from which intelligence originates and the brain evolves, like how the double helix of DNA and genetic codes are universal for every organism," says lead researcher Joe Tsien from Augusta University in Georgia.

"We present evidence that the brain may operate on an amazingly simple mathematical logic."

Of course there is a simple design foundation for the brain, it's called neurons. Stick a bunch of them together in the right way and they will do very interesting things, as demonstrated by our deep artificial neural networks. However it's still not that simple, there are actually dozens of different types of neurons, and although each one may only do some rather simple operations, when lots of them are put together they can perform extremely complex calculations. The whole trick of the brain is that it has dozens of different neural networks all tightly integrated with each other... one area of the brain for vision, another for motor control, another for language, etc. It's like if you took all the most advanced neural networks on Earth and then merged them together in a very complex fashion so that the networks were able to share data. Then you may possibly start to get something resembling a human brain, but there will be absolutely nothing simple about it.

I actually read the original research article. The upshot of the article is that a wide class of neurons---but not all of them---exhibit a certain phenomenology which is somewhat surprisingly like the efficient binary encoding of a digital computer. This is persisted across a number of stimulus types and neuronal layers & types.

More results: the connectivity pattern is not random. There is some kind of difference between the layer 2/3 and layer 5/6 in the cortical architecture.

I predict that the artificial neural network community (deep learning/AI) will start to examine statistics of their networks and see if they match, and more specifically, engineer networks which have behaviors that match this experimentally observed pattern.

Note that the article and theory describes the result---it doesn't describe how to engineer the underlying substrate.

It's literally like saying---hey the digital computer represents combinations of these Z input signals by efficient binary coding in the registers here----but it is not answering "what is the computer made out of and how do we hook it up to make that coding".