... the self-organization of social systems is at such a
high level it's unverifiable by myself, only verifiable
by the social systems themselves, and any such speculation
only serves to further playing little games here in Usenet.

On Oct 29, 11:45 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:



... the self-organization of social systems is at such a
high level it's unverifiable by myself, only verifiable
by the social systems themselves, and any such speculation
only serves to further playing little games here in Usenet.

I would dispute the idea that current social systems are at
such a high level we cannot understand them. Sure the details
at any point may be beyond us but the details may not matter
any more than the details of the actions of any molecule
matter in understanding the behavior of a gas.

It is an assumption that you cannot understand the machinery
behind the self organization in a social system. A simple
social system can be found in crowd behavior and that can be
understood and controlled even if the crowd itself cannot
represent such understanding of itself. In other words the
crowd isn't as smart as the parts that make it up and it is
certainly not more "complex".

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that a social system is
"brain like" either. It may be very complex and yet not have
the ability of self verification. Only in humans for example
have neural systems reached the point where they are capable
of understanding that they are neural systems.

Your views about not being able to understand social systems
seems to be like the views held by religious people who
believed they could not understand the works of God. Science
has thrown doubt on such beliefs.

On 29 Oct, 14:11, "J.A. Legris" <jaleg... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:



On Oct 29, 7:17 am, N <n.m.ke... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

On 29 Oct, 04:50, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Oct 29, 2:58 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 28, 7:36 pm, N <n.m.ke... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

well the AI brain stuff will need filling with artificial facts like,
identity and reasons for existance perhaps? etc lol

Those will be emergent phenomena.

The  answer to everything, it will all emerge. Do you have anything
new to say about how social systems self organize?

JC

social systems that self organise? how to 'stack' robots...that kind
of thing? or more like how they function together? or self repairing,
self sustaining systems like programmes perhaps? as far as I
understand,  anything that prevents repair from damage incidental or
deliberate harm is inadequate, thats if the object of the machinery is
to fulfill some kind of special purposes.

A car is a car...a box on wheels, its purpose is to transport. The
damage to its surface texture isnt necessarily harmful to its purpose,
although damage to the surface of 'some' machines such as to shields
and to armour plate is.  This would be like a imagine...some highly
specilized design? so self repair of some surfaces is really
important.

And then say that the purpose of the machine is to run a programme,
and the transportation is essential, but if it doesnt get to its
destination, the programme inside can still function and keeps
running. Then the programme will have to 'self repair' or consider
alternative ways to complete its routine.

An artificial social systems could function like...either high
individuation where each robot is self sustaining or specialized, only
occassionally going in for a recharge for example 90% independent, or
has a high dependency or totally shared and can never function without
continued checks, 10% independency.

Adaptability is the other thing that comes into my mind, large mutual
dependent systems run more slowly, although I imagine have greater
force.

You're getting warmer.

Self-organization, -assembly, -maintenance and -regeneration are so
basic to living organisms that they can be taken as defining
attributes - an artificial system exhibiting analogous competence
would surely qualify as "intelligent". Deep and thorough dependence on
chemistry and physics, i.e. properties of materials, is implicit,
which suggests that the notion of a purely computational
"intelligence" is a contradiction in terms.

--
Joe- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

any problems with your old mysterious 'stalking donkey' Joe? and does
it retrieve what it wants?

On Oct 29, 12:53 pm, N <n.m.ke... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:



On 29 Oct, 14:11, "J.A. Legris" <jaleg... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:

On Oct 29, 7:17 am, N <n.m.ke... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

On 29 Oct, 04:50, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Oct 29, 2:58 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 28, 7:36 pm, N <n.m.ke... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

well the AI brain stuff will need filling with artificial facts like,
identity and reasons for existance perhaps? etc lol

Those will be emergent phenomena.

The  answer to everything, it will all emerge. Do you have anything
new to say about how social systems self organize?

JC

social systems that self organise? how to 'stack' robots...that kind
of thing? or more like how they function together? or self repairing,
self sustaining systems like programmes perhaps? as far as I
understand,  anything that prevents repair from damage incidental or
deliberate harm is inadequate, thats if the object of the machinery is
to fulfill some kind of special purposes.

A car is a car...a box on wheels, its purpose is to transport. The
damage to its surface texture isnt necessarily harmful to its purpose,
although damage to the surface of 'some' machines such as to shields
and to armour plate is.  This would be like a imagine...some highly
specilized design? so self repair of some surfaces is really
important.

And then say that the purpose of the machine is to run a programme,
and the transportation is essential, but if it doesnt get to its
destination, the programme inside can still function and keeps
running. Then the programme will have to 'self repair' or consider
alternative ways to complete its routine.

An artificial social systems could function like...either high
individuation where each robot is self sustaining or specialized, only
occassionally going in for a recharge for example 90% independent, or
has a high dependency or totally shared and can never function without
continued checks, 10% independency.

Adaptability is the other thing that comes into my mind, large mutual
dependent systems run more slowly, although I imagine have greater
force.

You're getting warmer.

Self-organization, -assembly, -maintenance and -regeneration are so
basic to living organisms that they can be taken as defining
attributes - an artificial system exhibiting analogous competence
would surely qualify as "intelligent". Deep and thorough dependence on
chemistry and physics, i.e. properties of materials, is implicit,
which suggests that the notion of a purely computational
"intelligence" is a contradiction in terms.

--
Joe- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

any problems with your old mysterious 'stalking donkey' Joe? and does
it retrieve what it wants?

Huh?

On Oct 29, 9:21 pm, "J.A. Legris" <jaleg... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:



On Oct 29, 12:53 pm, N <n.m.ke... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

On 29 Oct, 14:11, "J.A. Legris" <jaleg... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:

On Oct 29, 7:17 am, N <n.m.ke... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

On 29 Oct, 04:50, casey <jgkjca... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Oct 29, 2:58 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 28, 7:36 pm, N <n.m.ke... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

well the AI brain stuff will need filling with artificial facts like,
identity and reasons for existance perhaps? etc lol

Those will be emergent phenomena.

The  answer to everything, it will all emerge. Do you have anything
new to say about how social systems self organize?

JC

social systems that self organise? how to 'stack' robots...that kind
of thing? or more like how they function together? or self repairing,
self sustaining systems like programmes perhaps? as far as I
understand,  anything that prevents repair from damage incidental or
deliberate harm is inadequate, thats if the object of the machinery is
to fulfill some kind of special purposes.

A car is a car...a box on wheels, its purpose is to transport. The
damage to its surface texture isnt necessarily harmful to its purpose,
although damage to the surface of 'some' machines such as to shields
and to armour plate is.  This would be like a imagine...some highly
specilized design? so self repair of some surfaces is really
important.

And then say that the purpose of the machine is to run a programme,
and the transportation is essential, but if it doesnt get to its
destination, the programme inside can still function and keeps
running. Then the programme will have to 'self repair' or consider
alternative ways to complete its routine.

An artificial social systems could function like...either high
individuation where each robot is self sustaining or specialized, only
occassionally going in for a recharge for example 90% independent, or
has a high dependency or totally shared and can never function without
continued checks, 10% independency.

Adaptability is the other thing that comes into my mind, large mutual
dependent systems run more slowly, although I imagine have greater
force.

You're getting warmer.

Self-organization, -assembly, -maintenance and -regeneration are so
basic to living organisms that they can be taken as defining
attributes - an artificial system exhibiting analogous competence
would surely qualify as "intelligent". Deep and thorough dependence on
chemistry and physics, i.e. properties of materials, is implicit,
which suggests that the notion of a purely computational
"intelligence" is a contradiction in terms.

--
Joe- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

any problems with your old mysterious 'stalking donkey' Joe? and does
it retrieve what it wants?

Huh?

The whole idea of putting forth things to debate is to help form the
Global Brain, for it is this telecommunication which forms the GB,
messaging between its "neurons" ( = people).  Sneaky devil, aren't
I????

On Oct 29, 12:50 am, "rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com" <rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com> wrote:

...
Every time a bad outcome occurs, the present motor program, together
with the present sensory condition is recorded in the synapses of the
thalamic reticular nucleus. The TRN is the great repository of the
failures in the life history of the organism. When a motor program and
the current condition of the world match the recorded bad outcome, the
motor program is halted and dissipates.
...

My mumblings are a description of the workings of a mammalian brain. Is this of any use to a person contemplating “building any kind brain for AI”? Some seem to think so. Many don’t. You pays your money, and you takes your choice.

It seems to me none of what you have written is useful in terms
of building any kind brain for AI?

JC

The brain is wholly a creature of the genome. The genome establishes a
structure that can accommodate itself to the impinging universe. The
genome does this because it survived. There is no other reason. The
genome has lived since the first cell.

The generators are centered in the spinal cord and the hindbrain. There
are centers for breathing, posture, locomotion, orienting, reaching,
grasping, manipulating, licking, chewing, swallowing, and vocalization.
This circuitry is highly conserved. It existed before the forebrain. The
notion of a center is a simplification. The circuitry that leads to the
generator, and the circuitry that leads from the generator to the motor
neurons is also set up by the genome.

The penultimate step of a motor program is to pass through the thalamus
on its way to the motor cortex. Here it comes under the scrutiny of the
thalamic reticular nucleus. The TRN is the repository of bad outcomes.
Every time a motor program is activated under particular conditions and
there is a bad outcome, that result is recorded in the synapses of the
TRN. If the present motor program and the present conditions match that
record, the synapses are activated, the TRN is turned on, and the motor
program is halted. A halted motor program simply disappears.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:24:34 -0700, rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com wrote:
The brain is wholly a creature of the genome. The genome establishes a
structure that can accommodate itself to the impinging universe. The
genome does this because it survived. There is no other reason. The
genome has lived since the first cell.

Actually, this is not so.

The embryonic development is a child of *interaction* between the genome,
the out-of-fetus influences (mother's hormonal status, for example) and
wholly "third-party" influences such as viruses.
This interaction is implemented and moderated via the cells and tissues
which undergo development.

So, to assume that understanding the "blank" brain only requires the
understanding of genome of the individual is mistaken.

The generators are centered in the spinal cord and the hindbrain. There
are centers for breathing, posture, locomotion, orienting, reaching,
grasping, manipulating, licking, chewing, swallowing, and vocalization.
This circuitry is highly conserved. It existed before the forebrain. The
notion of a center is a simplification. The circuitry that leads to the
generator, and the circuitry that leads from the generator to the motor
neurons is also set up by the genome.

This is probably an over-simplification of the matter.

The penultimate step of a motor program is to pass through the thalamus
on its way to the motor cortex. Here it comes under the scrutiny of the
thalamic reticular nucleus. The TRN is the repository of bad outcomes.
Every time a motor program is activated under particular conditions and
there is a bad outcome, that result is recorded in the synapses of the
TRN. If the present motor program and the present conditions match that
record, the synapses are activated, the TRN is turned on, and the motor
program is halted. A halted motor program simply disappears.

In order to detect the "bad outcome", the TRN would need to (1) have an
idea of what is going on outside and (2) have a faculty to analise the
data and REALIZE the bad outcome came to pass.

I am not aware of such faculties _within_ the TRN. However, they do exist
in the forebrain. And the thalamus is, ultimately, under total command of
the cortex. So these tasks get done in the cortex, while the thalamus
(and basal ganglia) only serve as executors.

A bad outcome is pain. Pain is accompanied by the release
of a neurohormone that floods the thalamic reticular nucleus.

The neurohormone causes all recently exercised synapses to
be strengthened. This causes the neurons of the TRN (in
effect, in effect only) to avoid pain in the future by
halting a motor program.

This love affair with the cerebral cortex can be overdone.

On Nov 3, 5:32 am, "rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com" <rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com> wrote:

A bad outcome is pain. Pain is accompanied by the release
of a neurohormone that floods the thalamic reticular nucleus.

Pain is a high level "opinion" the brain can have about itself
and learning is not just restricted to situations that the
brain finds painful.

The neurohormone causes all recently exercised synapses to
be strengthened. This causes the neurons of the TRN (in
effect, in effect only) to avoid pain in the future by
halting a motor program.

We are also pleasure seeking as well as pain avoiding.

This love affair with the cerebral cortex can be overdone.

And a love affair with the thalamus be overdone. I doubt all
our learning is simply a blocking or selection by the thalamus
of innate motor programs. Long term learning can take place
in many parts of the brain.

The bottom line however is you need to model what it is you
are talking about if you want it to be applicable to AI. These
models will test your theories to see if they can do what you
claim and make it clear what it is you are talking about.

On Nov 3, 5:32 am, "rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com" <rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com> wrote:

A bad outcome is pain. Pain is accompanied by the release of a
neurohormone that floods the thalamic reticular nucleus.


Pain is a high level "opinion" the brain can have about itself and
learning is not just restricted to situations that the brain finds
painful.


The neurohormone causes all recently exercised synapses to be
strengthened. This causes the neurons of the TRN (in effect, in effect
only) to avoid pain in the future by halting a motor program.

We are also pleasure seeking as well as pain avoiding.

This love affair with the cerebral cortex can be overdone.

And a love affair with the thalamus be overdone. I doubt all our
learning is simply a blocking or selection by the thalamus of innate
motor programs. Long term learning can take place in many parts of the
brain.

The bottom line however is you need to model what it is you are talking
about if you want it to be applicable to AI. These models will test your
theories to see if they can do what you claim and make it clear what it
is you are talking about.


John

The bottom line however is you need to model what it is you
are talking about if you want it to be applicable to AI.
These models will test your theories to see if they can do
what you claim and make it clear what it is you are talking
about.


Well, one has to start from somewhere.

Bolting down this emergence to a simple automation such as
the one presented in the first article is, IMHO, an over
simplification.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:09:18 -0800, casey wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:32 am, "rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com" <rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com> wrote:

A bad outcome is pain. Pain is accompanied by the release of a
neurohormone that floods the thalamic reticular nucleus.

Pain is a high level "opinion" the brain can have about itself and
learning is not just restricted to situations that the brain finds
painful.

The neurohormone causes all recently exercised synapses to be
strengthened. This causes the neurons of the TRN (in effect, in effect
only) to avoid pain in the future by halting a motor program.

We are also pleasure seeking as well as pain avoiding.

This love affair with the cerebral cortex can be overdone.

And a love affair with the thalamus be overdone. I doubt all our
learning is simply a blocking or selection by the thalamus of innate
motor programs. Long term learning can take place in many parts of the
brain.

The bottom line however is you need to model what it is you are talking
about if you want it to be applicable to AI. These models will test your
theories to see if they can do what you claim and make it clear what it
is you are talking about.

John

Well, one has to start from somewhere.

The thing is that any love affair in the matters of the brain is likely
to be overdone. The simple reason is the fact that all parts of the brain
are interconnected. Secondly, the brain not only acts as a whole, within
itself, it also acts as a whole in relation with the surrounding (as
showed by experiments with sensual deprivation). Third, the notion of a
"soul" as in a singular conscious entity (presumed to be incorporated in
some part ("centre for soul") in the brain) is, AFAIK, unprovable.

But, if we take the interconnected brain and granulate it, we can model
our complex behavior.
For example, lets say we want to model an emotional response. A bad one.
First, in neurobiology, "emotion" is defined as a state of readiness for
a particular set of actions. So, "sadness" is a state of readiness for
performing "sad" actions (maintaining a sad facial expression, crying,
etc.). Note that nowhere in the definition are absolute terms used. The
spectrum of these actions is, therefore, not chiseled in rock. Actions
can change (so laughing can also theoretically be a sad action).
This has an important repercussion, one which I will detail presently -
namely, it is not the act that defines itself, it is the response which
defines it. Details below.

Pain can occur somewhere in the body (note: this will not be an attempt
to describe the pain pathway but an attempt to clarify what I said
earlier). Via complex bodily functions, action potentials arrive to the
brain, to a "pain induced saddnes centre". Now, fundamentally, there is
no such thing as a "brain centre for-this-or-for-that". These are our
human constructs we use to make sense of the world. This "pain induced
saddnes centre" in the example works not by somehow being conscious about
the pain, but by (i.e.) activating other centers. Namely, those which
actuate the "sad actions". So, the pain centre activates various motor
networks (the upper motoneuron is essentially never activated by non-
motor centers, only by other motoneurons) which create and maintain a sad
facial expression. The pain centre, furthermore, activates memory
systems, both to remember the current event and to recall previous. Et
cetera, et cetera..

Now, while this "pain centre" is active, it is important to note that an
emotion (state of readiness) is, if fact, not implemented by the so-
called "centre". It is implemented by everything else that this centre
influences! I say influences because only a minority of synapses are
excitatory, most are inhibitory.
The centre may be out of cortex (in fact, the "primary brain centre" for
pain IS out of cortex, in midbrain). What is important is that any sort
of brain activity if actually /emergent/.

Bolting down this emergence to a simple automation such as the one
presented in the first article is, IMHO, an oversimplification.

That is the reason I wrote my article as I wrote it. I understand I was a
bit blunt, my bad.

But I am open to objections, ofcourse. That is why I am here.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Nov 4, 12:28 pm, Aleksandar Kuktin <akuk... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:



On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:09:18 -0800, casey wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:32 am, "rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com" <rs... at (no spam) nycap.rr.com> wrote:

A bad outcome is pain. Pain is accompanied by the release of a
neurohormone that floods the thalamic reticular nucleus.

Pain is a high level "opinion" the brain can have about itself and
learning is not just restricted to situations that the brain finds
painful.

The neurohormone causes all recently exercised synapses to be
strengthened. This causes the neurons of the TRN (in effect, in effect
only) to avoid pain in the future by halting a motor program.

We are also pleasure seeking as well as pain avoiding.

This love affair with the cerebral cortex can be overdone.

And a love affair with the thalamus be overdone. I doubt all our
learning is simply a blocking or selection by the thalamus of innate
motor programs. Long term learning can take place in many parts of the
brain.

The bottom line however is you need to model what it is you are talking
about if you want it to be applicable to AI. These models will test your
theories to see if they can do what you claim and make it clear what it
is you are talking about.

John

Well, one has to start from somewhere. :)

  Well, that's so true. Since so many AI philosophers are always
  Portney Complaining about why some engineers believe that
  might makes right. Well they don't. They believe that Satellites
  GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping, and Data Fusion make right,
  for the simple, simple, simple reason that so many stooge
  philosophers of science believe that Gallileo makes right.

  And they believe that Blue Ray, HDTV, Home Broadband,
  Flat Sceen Debuggers, Holographics Integration, Self-Assembling
Robots, Digital Books,
  USB, Rapid Prototyping, and  On-Line Publishing makes right, for the
even simpler reason
  that so many stooge chemists believe that Nobel Prizes make right.

  And they believe that  Cyber Batteries, Flash Memory, All-In-One
Printers, mp3, mpeg,
  Atomic Clock Wriswatches, Light Sticks,  Multiplexed Fiber Optics,
UAVs, Drones
  and the 21st Century make right for the  trivial reason that idiot
physicists believe that
  Ben Franklin makes right.



The thing is that any love affair in the matters of the brain is likely
to be overdone. The simple reason is the fact that all parts of the brain
are interconnected. Secondly, the brain not only acts as a whole, within
itself, it also acts as a whole in relation with the surrounding (as
showed by experiments with sensual deprivation). Third, the notion of a
"soul" as in a singular conscious entity (presumed to be incorporated in
some part ("centre for soul") in the brain) is, AFAIK, unprovable.

But, if we take the interconnected brain and granulate it, we can model
our complex behavior.
For example, lets say we want to model an emotional response. A bad one..
First, in neurobiology, "emotion" is defined as a state of readiness for
a particular set of actions. So, "sadness" is a state of readiness for
performing "sad" actions (maintaining a sad facial expression, crying,
etc.). Note that nowhere in the definition are absolute terms used. The
spectrum of these actions is, therefore, not chiseled in rock. Actions
can change (so laughing can also theoretically be a sad action).
This has an important repercussion, one which I will detail presently -
namely, it is not the act that defines itself, it is the response which
defines it. Details below.

Pain can occur somewhere in the body (note: this will not be an attempt
to describe the pain pathway but an attempt to clarify what I said
earlier). Via complex bodily functions, action potentials arrive to the
brain, to a "pain induced saddnes centre". Now, fundamentally, there is
no such thing as a "brain centre for-this-or-for-that". These are our
human constructs we use to make sense of the world. This "pain induced
saddnes centre" in the example works not by somehow being conscious about
the pain, but by (i.e.) activating other centers. Namely, those which
actuate the "sad actions". So, the pain centre activates various motor
networks (the upper motoneuron is essentially never activated by non-
motor centers, only by other motoneurons) which create and maintain a sad
facial expression. The pain centre, furthermore, activates memory
systems, both to remember the current event and to recall previous. Et
cetera, et cetera..

Now, while this "pain centre" is active, it is important to note that an
emotion (state of readiness) is, if fact, not implemented by the so-
called "centre". It is implemented by everything else that this centre
influences! I say influences because only a minority of synapses are
excitatory, most are inhibitory.
The centre may be out of cortex (in fact, the "primary brain centre" for
pain IS out of cortex, in midbrain). What is important is that any sort
of brain activity if actually /emergent/.

Bolting down this emergence to a simple automation such as the one
presented in the first article is, IMHO, an oversimplification.

That is the reason I wrote my article as I wrote it. I understand I was a
bit blunt, my bad.

But I am open to objections, ofcourse. That is why I am here.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -