Natural Intelligence (NI) and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)

89 views
Skip to first unread message

Radh Achuthan

unread,
Jun 29, 2016, 11:55:44 AM6/29/16
to opencog, 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.)

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? ) abstract AGI would provide Universal Human Rights and a Basic Income to all humans.

Could abstract AGI claim the autonomy to do so  ?

In a sense abstract initial AGI programs could be viewed as self-actualized NI.

Looking forward to your assessment, comments.


Thank You.

Dr. M. Radh Achuthan


Gaurav Gautam

unread,
Jun 29, 2016, 12:29:02 PM6/29/16
to opencog, mmn...@gmail.com
Hello,

I am a noob too. I want to ask a few meta questions as well:

1. Is enough known about AGI to take the discussions about its social impacts this far? I
get it when people are worried about building the correct ethics into the system but I have
no clear idea about how this is being done in CogPrime. I got the impression that it is
proposed that the CogPrime implementation will have a set of basic ethical principal
hardcoded into it and it will build the rest by itself. Are these directives complex enough
to speculate about what the AI will do, like providing basic salaries or human rights?

2. It seems to me that everybody just takes it for granted that an AGI at the human level
will just explode into a superintelligence the moment it is made. From some of Ben's talks
I get the idea that he believes that there may be fundamental limits on how smart an AGI
can become. So, why can't these limits be very near the intelligence levels achieved by
the smartest humans? Afterall, humans are the smartest things we have see so far in nature.
What if we are almost as smart as a smart system gets?

Yours sincerely
Gaurav Gautam

Andi

unread,
Jul 12, 2016, 10:25:39 AM7/12/16
to opencog, mmn...@gmail.com


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
 

Linas Vepstas

unread,
Jul 12, 2016, 12:47:57 PM7/12/16
to opencog, mmn...@gmail.com
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

-- or other writings by Kleidon e.g. this might be easier to read:


Regarding the central nervous system, it is critically important to understand this:
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) 


--
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 opencog+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com.
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.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Andi

unread,
Jul 13, 2016, 6:54:36 AM7/13/16
to opencog, mmn...@gmail.com, linasv...@gmail.com


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

-- or other writings by Kleidon e.g. this might be easier to read:


Regarding the central nervous system, it is critically important to understand this:
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


 

Andi

unread,
Jul 13, 2016, 9:22:18 AM7/13/16
to opencog, mmn...@gmail.com, linasv...@gmail.com


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

-- or other writings by Kleidon e.g. this might be easier to read:


Regarding the central nervous system, it is critically important to understand this:
František Baluška and Michael Levin
On Having No Head: Cognition throughout Biological Systems

Hello Linas, again,

I did now read and understand this article: "On Having No Head: Cognition throughout Biological Systems".

It was fast because what is written there is part of my overall knowledge, thinking and understanding. And I fully agree with it.

Thank you very much for the link because it leads to many explicit and particular resources.

I want to add something to the last statement in this Article:
"In the brain, genetics establish the hardware – genes encode the available components and thus define the limits of cellular activity. However, the information content of the brain is not directly encoded by the genome, but rather arises dynamically through environmental stimuli (learning) and self-organizing dynamics of the electrochemical circuitry (plasticity)."

This should be more precise.
As I stated in my first answer to you:
"- This cell contains all the knowledge and even the ability to build up a human including the brain and even including a huge set of behavioral knowledge - at least the instincts, but also the very sophisticated behavioral programms that are contained in the cerebellum. And more."

so:
"the instincts, but also the very sophisticated behavioral programms that are contained in the cerebellum"
  this information content of the brainis is directly encoded by the genome!

But information that is gathered by the individual itself is of course not encoded in the genome (how could it!) but rather arises dynamically through environmental stimuli (learning) and self-organizing dynamics of the electrochemical circuitry (plasticity).

Andi
( Please note: I am German and have just a little school English. So it may happen that I use some words/phrases   wrong, which can lead to missunderstandings. Please feel free to correct me. So I can learn. And pleas ask if something sounds odd.)




 

Andi

unread,
Jul 13, 2016, 10:50:02 AM7/13/16
to opencog, mmn...@gmail.com, linasv...@gmail.com


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

-- or other writings by Kleidon e.g. this might be easier to read:

Hello Linas,

I did now also read and understand this two papers from Axel Kleidon.

Hmmm, many words about very few ideas.......
Does he really understand about what he is writing or is he trying to get an understanding of the topic by writing about it as much as possible? Or is his work payed by government money that is given to prove the man made climate change?

As I see it, physics lacks of understanding information as describing and at same time building up space time.

This is very bad because physicist are the only ones who would be able to do the math for it.

Andi

 
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages